Historic Preservation, Advisory Council
National Agricultural Statistics Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service
Engineers Corps
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Minority Business Development Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Fiscal Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule updates our regulations to show a list of institutions that are granted HSACU certification by the Secretary and are eligible for HSACU programs for the period starting October 1, 2012 and ending September 30, 2013.
This rule is effective November 16, 2012 and applicable October 1, 2012.
Matthew Lockhart; Senior Policy Specialist; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2299; Voice: 202-559-5088; Fax: 202-401-7752; Email:
This rule makes changes to the existing list of institutions in Appendix B of 7 CFR part 3434. The list of institutions is amended to reflect the institutions that are granted HSACU certification by the Secretary and are eligible for HSACU programs for the period starting October 1, 2012, and ending September 30, 2013.
As stated in 7 CFR part 3434, an institution must meet the following criteria to receive HSACU certification: (1) Be a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), (2) offer agriculture-related degrees, and (3) award at least 15% of agriculture-related degrees to Hispanic students over the two most recent academic years.
NIFA obtained the latest report from the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics that lists all HSIs and the degrees conferred by these institutions (completions data) during the 2010-11 academic year. NIFA used this report to identify HSIs that conferred a degree in an instructional program that appears in Appendix A of 7 CFR part 3434 and to confirm that over the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years at least 15% of the degrees in agriculture-related fields were awarded to Hispanic students.
The updated list of HSACUs is based on (1) completions data from 2009-10 and 2010-11, and (2) enrollment data from Fall 2011. NIFA identified 80 institutions that will meet the eligibility criteria and receive HSACU certification for FY 2013 (October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013).
NIFA will permit HSIs that are not granted HSACU certification to submit an appeal within 30 days of the publication of this notice. The appellant must submit a request for review to the NIFA official specified in this notice with details on the nature of the disagreement and include supporting documents.
This rule relates to internal agency management. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required, and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure; Agricultural research, education, extension; Hispanic-Serving Institutions; Federal assistance.
Title 7, part 3434 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended accordingly as set forth below:
7 U.S.C. 3103.
The institutions listed in this appendix are granted HSACU certification by the Secretary and are eligible for HSACU programs for the period starting October 1, 2012, and ending September 30, 2013. Institutions are listed alphabetically under the state of the school's location, with the campus indicated where applicable.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) is amending its rules of practice and procedure to adjust the amount of each civil money penalty (CMP) provided by law within its jurisdiction to account for inflation. This action is required under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
This rule is effective November 16, 2012.
Katherine H. Wheatley, Associate General Counsel (202) 452-3779, or Mehrnoush Bigloo, Attorney (202) 475-6361, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. For users of Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202) 263-4869.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461
The FCPIA Act defines the inflation adjustment as a cost-of-living adjustment based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index between June of the calendar year in which the particular CMP was last set or adjusted and June of the calendar year preceding the current adjustment (in this case, June 2011). The Act specifies the use of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published by the Department of Labor. Accordingly, to obtain the percent inflation adjustment for each CMP within the Board's jurisdiction, we calculated the percent change in the CPI-U between June of the year in which the CMP was last adjusted and June 2011.
The following is an example of the methodology for adjusting CMPs, using the penalty for a first tier violation of 12 U.S.C. 1847(d). First, because that CMP was last adjusted in 2000, we calculated the percent increase between the CPI-U for June 2000 (172.4) and the CPI-U for June 2011 (225.72). We then took that percentage (30.9%) and multiplied it by the current CMP amount of $2,200 to obtain an inflation increase of $679.80. Because the current CMP amount is greater than $1,000 but less than $10,000, the Act requires us to round the inflation increase to the nearest multiple of $1,000. Rounding $679.80 to the nearest multiple of $1,000 yields $1,000. Accordingly, the increase to the $2,200 penalty for a first tier violation of 12 U.S.C. 1847(d) is $1,000, resulting in an adjusted CMP of $3,200.
This rule is not subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, requiring notice, public participation, and deferred effective date. The FCPIA Act provides Federal agencies with no discretion in the adjustment of CMPs to the rate of inflation, and it also requires that adjustments be made at least every four years. Moreover, this regulation is ministerial and technical. For these reasons, the Board finds good cause to determine that public notice and comment for this new regulation is unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest, pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). These same reasons also provide the Board with good cause to adopt an effective date for this regulation that is less than 30 days after the date of publication in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
There is no collection of information required by this final rule that would be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Crime, Equal Access to Justice, Lawyers, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board of Governors amends 12 CFR part 263 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 248, 324, 504, 505, 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1468, 1817(j), 1818, 1820(k), 1828(c), 1829(e), 1831o, 1831p-1, 1847(b), 1847(d), 1884(b), 1972(2)(F), 3105, 3107, 3108, 3349, 3907, 3909, 4717; 15 U.S.C. 21, 78(1), 78o-4, 78o-5, 78u-2; 28 U.S.C. 2461
(a)
(b)
(1) 12 U.S.C. 324:
(i) Inadvertently late, false or misleading reports,
(ii) Other late, false or misleading reports,
(iii) Knowingly or recklessly false or misleading reports,
(2) 12 U.S.C. 504, 505, 1817(j)(16), 1818(i)(2) and 1972(2)(F):
(i) First tier—$7,500.
(ii) Second tier—$37,500.
(iii) Third tier—$1,425,000.
(3) 12 U.S.C. 1820(k)(6)(A)(ii)—$275,000.
(4) 12 U.S.C. 1832(c)—$1,100.
(5) 12 U.S.C. 1847(b), 3110(a)—$37,500.
(6) 12 U.S.C. 1847(d), 3110(c):
(i) First tier—$3,200.
(ii) Second tier—$32,000.
(iii) Third tier—$1,425,000.
(7) 12 U.S.C. 334, 374a, 1884—$110.
(8) 12 U.S.C. 3909(d)—$1,100.
(9) 15 U.S.C. 78u-2:
(i) 15 U.S.C. 78u-2(b)(1)—$7,500 for a natural person and $70,000 for any other person.
(ii) 15 U.S.C. 78u-2(b)(2)—$70,000 for a natural person and $350,000 for any other person.
(iii) 15 U.S.C. 78u-2(b)(3)—$140,000 for a natural person and $700,000 for any other person.
(10) 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(5)—$2,000.
(11) 12 U.S.C. 1467a(i):
(i) 12 U.S.C. 1467a(i)(2)—$32,500.
(ii) 12 U.S.C. 1467a(i)(3)—$32,500.
(12) 12 U.S.C. 1467a(r):
(i) 12 U.S.C. 1467a(r)(1)—$3,200.
(ii) 12 U.S.C. 1467a(r)(2)—$32,500.
(iii) 12 U.S.C. 1467a(r)(3)—$1,425,000.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Anthony, KS. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Anthony Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-7716.
On August 2, 2012, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at Anthony Municipal Airport, Anthony, KS. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of 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 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 amends controlled airspace at Anthony Municipal Airport, Anthony, KS.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Anthony Municipal Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 000° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 12 miles north of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Guthrie, IA. Decommissioning of the Guthrie Center non-directional radio beacon (NDB) at Guthrie County Regional Airport has made reconfiguration necessary for standard instrument approach procedures and for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport. Geographic coordinates of the airport are also adjusted.
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-7716.
On August 2, 2012, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of 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 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 amends controlled airspace at Guthrie County Regional Airport, Guthrie, IA.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air)
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Guthrie County Regional Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Forest City, IA. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Forest City Municipal Airport. The Forest City nondirectional beacon's (NDB) geographic coordinates are also adjusted. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective date: 0901 UTC, January 10, 2013. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-7716.
On August 16, 2012, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at Forest City Municipal Airport, Forest City, IA. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Geographic coordinates of the Forest City NDB are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not
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 of 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 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 amends controlled airspace at Forest City Municipal Airport, Forest City, IA.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Forest City Municipal Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 347° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 10.6 miles north of the airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 162° bearing from the Forest City NDB extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 7.4 miles southeast of the airport.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Final rule; confirmation of effective date.
OSHA is confirming the effective date of its direct final rule that revises the Head Protection standards for general industry, shipyard employment, marine terminals, longshoring, and construction by updating the reference to a standard published by a standards-developing organization, the American National Standards Institute. In the June 22, 2012, direct final rule, OSHA stated that it would withdraw the companion proposed rule and confirm the effective date of the direct final rule if the Agency received no significant adverse comments. OSHA did not receive significant adverse comments on the direct final rule. Therefore, OSHA is confirming that the direct final rule became effective on September 20, 2012.
The direct final rule published on June 22, 2012 (77 FR 37587), was effective on September 20, 2012. For the purposes of judicial review, OSHA considers November 16, 2012, as the date of issuance.
In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), OSHA designates the Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health as the recipient of petitions for review of the final standard. Contact Joseph M. Woodward, Associate Solicitor, at the Office of the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-5445.
In that
Head protection, Incorporation by reference, Occupational safety and health, Safety.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this final rule. OSHA is issuing this final rule pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in December 2012. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective December 1, 2012.
Catherine B. Klion (
PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (
PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for December 2012.
The December 2012 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 0.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for November 2012, these interest assumptions are unchanged.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during December 2012, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of xylenesulfonic acid, sodium salt (also known as sodium xylene sulfonate) (CAS Reg. No. 1300-72-7) when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, diary processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils at 500 parts per million (ppm) utensils. The firm Exponent on behalf of Ecolab Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of sodium xylene sulfonate.
This regulation is effective November 16, 2012. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 15, 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-2011-0951, is available at
Mark Dow, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5533; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 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-2011-0951 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 15, 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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0951, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for 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 * * *.”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 sodium xylene sulfonate including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with sodium xylene sulfonate follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by sodium xylene sulfonate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
Sodium xylene sulfonate has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and inhalation route of exposure. Sodium xylene sulfonate is a slight skin and mild eye irritant. Based upon information regarding sodium toluene sulfonate, sodium xylene sulfonate is negative for dermal sensitization. Several subchronic studies via the oral route of exposure are available in the database. In two 14-day toxicity studies in mice and rats, no significant treatment related toxicity was observed at doses up to 4% in the diet (approximately 4,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) in mice. In rats, there were some mortalities which were not observed in a dose-related manner and losses of body weight that were probably due to palatability of the test article. In a repeat toxicity study in rats, mortality was not observed at doses up to 4% in the diet. A 90-day subchronic toxicity study was conducted in Wistar rats with doses of sodium xylene sulfonate up to 5% in
Sodium xylene sulfonate was tested for its mutagenic potential in various
There are no reproductive toxicity studies for sodium xylene sulfonate. However, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Screening Information Dataset (SIDS) Assessment included reviews of a 91-day oral rat feeding study with sodium cumene sulfonate, a 90-day feeding study with sodium xylene sulfonate (mice and rats), and the 2-year dermal studies with sodium xylene sulfonate (mice and rats) which included examination of the reproductive organs of both sexes. There was no evidence from these studies to suggest that sodium xylene sulfonate would have an adverse effect on reproductive organs by either the oral or dermal route. No developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits are available in the sodium xylene sulfonate database. However, a developmental study with the rat is available for a surrogate chemical, calcium xylene sulfonate. In this study the NOAEL for maternal and fetal toxicity was the highest dose tested; 3,000 mg/kg/day which correspond to 936 mg/kg bw/day. Based on the calcium xylene sulfonate OECD Guideline study, there is no evidence to consider these materials as being developmental toxicants. There is no evidence in the sodium xylene sulfonate database that sodium xylene sulfonate is an immunotoxin.
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
No endpoint of concern following a single dose was identified in the available database. The Agency identified a NOAEL of 763 mg/kg bw/day for systemic toxicity, which was selected from an oral subchronic study. Effects observed in this study were a decrease in spleen weight in females along with some clinical chemistry and hematology changes at the LOAEL of 3,454 mg/kg bw/day. No adverse effects were reported in males. This study was used for chronic dietary exposure assessment. An uncertainty factor of 100X is applied (10X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variability). Based on the physicochemical data and lack of systemic toxicity in the available dermal toxicity studies, EPA concluded that there is no need to conduct quantitative dermal risk exposure assessment. For several reasons, no additional uncertainty factor is necessary for the use of subchronic study data for chronic exposure assessment. First there was a wide dose spread between the toxic effects seen at the LOAEL of 3,454 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL of 763 mg/kg/day. Second, the changes observed in clinical chemistry and hematological parameters were small in magnitude and no effects on organs were observed in the study. Therefore, the changes observed were not considered toxicologically significant. Finally, the NOAEL in a separate 90-day study in rats was 2,467 mg/kg/day indicating the lower NOAEL value in the selected study is an artifact of dose selection. Therefore, EPA concluded that there is no need to add an additional uncertainty factor for use of short-term study for long-term exposure assessment.
1.
In the absence of actual dietary exposure data resulting from this proposed use the EPA has utilized a conservative, health-protective method of estimating dietary intake that is based upon conservative assumptions related to the amount of residues that can be transferred to foods as a result of the proposed use of sodium xylene sulfonates in food contact sanitizing pesticide products. This same methodology has been utilized by EPA in estimating dietary exposures to antimicrobial pesticides used in food-handling settings. The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate chronic dietary exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of chronic dietary risk due to a series of compounded conservatisms as described in the unit. First, when a surface is treated with a disinfectant, a quantity of the disinfectant remains on the surface (Residual Solution). In the absence of any other data, EPA has used an estimated worst-case concentration of 1 mg of solution per square centimeter (cm
In conducting the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments for sodium xylene sulfonate, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, no residue data are available for sodium xylene sulfonate. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high-use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at
In the dietary exposure assessment, the Agency assumed that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the active and inert ingredient and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient.
The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk due to a series of compounded conservatisms.
First, assuming that the level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The concentration of active ingredient in agricultural products is generally at least 50% of the product and often can be much higher. Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert ingredient; rather there is generally a combination of different inert ingredients used which additionally reduces the concentration of any single inert ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of the active ingredient.
Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level. This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity.
Finally, a third compounding conservatism is EPA's assumption that all foods contain the inert ingredient at the highest tolerance level. In other words, EPA assumed 100% of all foods are treated with the inert ingredient at the rate and manner necessary to produce the highest residue legally possible for an active ingredient.
In summary, EPA chose a very conservative method for estimating what level of inert residue could be on food, then used this methodology to choose the highest possible residue that could be found on food and assumed that all food contained this residue. No consideration was given to potential degradation between harvest and consumption even though monitoring data shows that tolerance level residues are typically one to two orders of magnitude higher than actual residues of magnitude higher than actual residues in food when distributed in commerce. Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these conservative assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of actual exposures.
2.
The proposed use of sodium xylene sulfonate will not result in its presence in surface water or ground water and therefore not contribute to dietary exposure.
3.
Sodium xylene sulfonate is not used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for specific uses that may result in either indoor and outdoor residential exposures. However, sodium xylene sulfonate is used as a component of personal care products. The OECD SIDS Assessment estimated highest human exposures resulting from personal care product use. The exposure estimates ranged from 0.02-0.14 mg/kg/day for shampoos and hair conditioners to 0.11-0.17 mg/kg/day for liquid face and hand soaps. Exposure estimates for cleaning product use and residuals on clothing range from 0.01-0.08 mg/kg/day. All exposure evaluations included conservative (protective) input assumptions (e.g., all modeled human exposures are conservative due to the use of a default assumption of 100% absorption). However, the physicochemical data and available toxicological data suggest that dermal absorption is likely to be minimal. Based on the lack of concern for dermal toxicity and the low estimates of residential exposure, a quantitative residential risk assessment was not performed.
4.
EPA has not found sodium xylene sulfonate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and sodium xylene sulfonate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. However, there are other chemicals belonging to the xylene sulfonate class of chemicals that may have a similar toxicity profile but these chemicals will be used as an alternative to sodium xylene sulfonate. Therefore, a cumulative risk assessment was not performed. Furthermore, the cPAD for pesticidal uses occupies only 7% of the cPAD for the general population and any potential increase in exposure to this class of chemicals will still be below any levels of concern. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that sodium xylene sulfonate 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.
In a developmental toxicity study in rats with calcium xylene sulfonate, no maternal or developmental effects were observed at doses of 3,000 mg/kg/day (equal to 936 mg/kg/day corrected for purity of test material).
There is no evidence of prenatal or postnatal sensitivity as a result of exposure to sodium xylene sulfonate.
3.
i. Available studies included several 90-day toxicity studies via oral and dermal routes, chronic studies, mutagenicity battery, a developmental study in rats and metabolism studies. These studies provide an adequate characterization of sodium xylene sulfonate toxicity.
ii. There is no indication that sodium xylene sulfonate is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. No reproductive toxicity study or developmental toxicity study are available for sodium xylene sulfonate. However, the concern for increased susceptibility of infants and children exposure to sodium xylene sulfonate are low because no effects on reproductive parameters were observed in various oral toxicity studies and the developmental toxicity in rats for a surrogate chemical show lack of systemic toxicity at doses up to 936 mg/kg/day (mentioned under pre and post natal susceptibility).
iv. No evidence of immunotoxicity was observed in the database except slightly decreased in spleen weight was observed at the LOAEL of 3,454 mg/kg bw/day. There are no concerns for immunotoxicity and an immunotoxicity study is not required because the slight decreased in spleen weights were observed at high doses without any evidence of histopathological findings.
v. No additional uncertainty factor is needed for the use of subchronic study data for chronic exposure assessment. The rational for this decision is provided in Unit IV.B.
vi. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to sodium xylene sulfonate in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by sodium xylene sulfonate.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of xylene sulfonic acid, sodium salt in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of xylene sulfonic acid, sodium salt that may be used in pesticide formulations. That limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for sodium xylene sulfonate.
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for xylenesulfonic acid, sodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 1300-72-7) when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial formulations in pesticide formulations applied to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils at a maximum of 500 parts per million of final solution. Additionally the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for xylenesulfonic acid under 40 CFR 180.940(c), can be removed as the establishment of a broader exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for xylenesulfonic acid under 180.940(a) obviates the need for 40 CFR 180.940(c) tolerance exemption.
This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
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), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation amends the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the plant growth regulator, 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene (1,4-DMN) by expanding the current exemption to include all sprouting root and tuber vegetables (EPA Crop Group 01) and all bulb vegetables (EPA Crop Group 03). On behalf of D-I-1-4, Inc., a division of 1,4Group, Inc., Technology Sciences Group, Inc. (TSG) submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting that EPA amend the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 1,4-DMN. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 1,4-DMN under the FFDCA.
This regulation is effective November 16, 2012. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 15, 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-2011-1029, is available at
Colin G. Walsh, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0298; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under 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-2011-1029 in the subject line on
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any CBI) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1029, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require 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 * * *.” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] * * * residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability, and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
EPA established a tolerance exemption for 1,4-DMN in a Final Rule published in the
As discussed in the
As stated previously in this Unit, new toxicity data have been submitted in support of the request by the petitioner to expand the current tolerance exemption to cover all sprouting root, tuber, and bulb crops. These data include: (1) A prenatal developmental toxicity study and (2) additional data not required by EPA, but used to further support the developmental data and this expansion of the tolerance exemption. All new data, coupled with the data submitted to support the previous tolerance exemption (60 FR 7456), confirm the minimal human health hazard effects, as reported in the original assessment of the tolerance exemption, associated with dietary exposures of 1,4-DMN and fully demonstrate the lack of mammalian toxicity. Summaries of the new toxicological data submitted in support of the expansion of the tolerance exemption follow.
A new developmental study (Master Record Identification (MRID) Number 48590905) was performed for 1,4-DMN to support the expansion of the tolerance exemption. 1,4-DMN was administered by oral gavage to female rabbits at the dose levels of 0, 25, 80, or 250 milligrams/per/day (mg/kg/day) (23 rabbits per test group) over gestation days 6 through 28. No treatment-related clinical signs were noted during the study, and gross necropsy findings were limited to those rabbits that underwent abortion (Ref. 1). The gross necropsy findings consisted of changes in the gastrointestinal tract (dilatation of stomach and/or intestines) and were likely related to the lack of eating prior to and during the abortion. Mean food consumption was significantly reduced in the 250 mg/kg/day treated doses shortly after treatment initiation (over gestation days 6 to 9 and 9 to 12). This reduction in food consumption was likely treatment-related. Corollary reductions in mean body weight gain were observed in the 250 mg/kg/day treated group over gestation days 6 to 9. Alterations in uterus weight were not observed, nor were changes seen in maternal body weight or body weight gain when corrected for uterus weight. As such, the changes seen early on in gestational body weight gain were considered to be solely associated with maternal toxicity. Therefore, the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for maternal toxicity of 1,4-DMN in rats is 250 mg/kg/day based on reduced food consumption and reduced body weight gain. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for maternal toxicity is 80 mg/kg/day based on no effects observed at this dose.
For developmental toxicity, no treatment-related differences in litter viability were detected at any dose level tested. The number of male, female, and total fetuses (sexes combined) were similar across the treatment and control groups and average fetal weights were unaffected. No structural alterations, including gross external, visceral, skeletal, and cephalic, were evident from the fetal examinations; as such, 1,4-DMN did not produce any frank malformations and was not teratogenic. Based on no effects observed for developmental toxicity at any doses tested, the NOAEL for developmental toxicity is greater than 250 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested). The LOAEL was not identified for developmental toxicity, suggesting that the test animals could have tolerated a higher dose.
Based on the developmental toxicity data submitted for this expansion to the tolerance exemption, which showed no adverse effects at the highest dose tested, 250 mg/kg/day, there are sufficient data and information to confirm that 1,4-DMN is not a developmental toxicant. Therefore, the consumption of food commodities that have been treated with 1,4-DMN when used as a pesticide is safe and will not result in any harm to human health, specifically women of child-bearing age, from dietary exposure.
Additional toxicity data for 1,4-DMN that were not required by EPA to support this expansion of the tolerance exemption were submitted by the petitioner. The additional data include the following: Unscheduled DNA synthesis (mutagenicity),
1. An
2. An
3. A dermal sensitization test (MRID 48590904) utilizing the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) method showed that 1,4-DMN is not a dermal sensitizer (Ref. 1). The dermal sensitization test utilizing the Buehler method submitted to support the previous tolerance exemption (60 FR 7456) also showed that 1,4-DMN is not a dermal sensitizer.
4. A one-generation reproductive toxicity study (MRID 48590906) was conducted on rats to assess systemic, developmental, and reproductive toxicity. 1,4-DMN was administered in the diet at the dose concentrations of 0, 500, 2,000, and 7,500 ppm with each dose group consisting of 24 males and 24 female rats. The results of the study showed that the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 2,000 ppm (equivalent to 121 to 207 mg/kg/day in parental male and female rats and 184 to 213 mg/kg/day in F
Based on the reproductive toxicity data submitted for this expansion to the tolerance exemption, which showed no adverse reproductive effects at the highest dose tested, 7,500 ppm (equivalent to 441 to 591 mg/kg/day in parental male and female rats and 776 to 839 mg/kg/day in F
5. A combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study (MRID 48590907) was conducted on rats (65 rats/sex/group for carcinogenicity and 20 rats/sex/group for chronic toxicity) to assess the chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity potential for 1,4-DMN. 1,4-DMN was administered in the diet of rats 7 days/week for a minimum of 52 weeks (chronic toxicity phase) or 104 weeks (carcinogenicity phase), at the dose concentrations of 0, 150, 500, and 3,750 ppm, equivalent to the dose concentrations of 0, 10, 33, and 250 mg/kg/day. For the chronic study, decreased food consumption with concurrent decreases in body weight and body weight gain were noted in the 250 mg/kg/day dose group. Minimal to moderate histologic test material-related effects in the kidney (proteinosis, papillary necrosis and karyomegaly) were noted in male rats at 250 mg/kg/day, while minimal to mild karyomegaly was noted in the kidney of female rats administered 1,4-DMN at dosages of 33 or 250 mg/kg/day. Based on the results of the chronic toxicity study, the NOAEL for chronic toxicity was 33 mg/kg/day for males and 10 mg/kg/day for females. For the carcinogenicity study, no incidences of carcinogenicity were noted in rats in any of the dose concentrations after the 97 weeks and 104 weeks of treatment for female and male rats, respectively.
Based on the results of the carcinogenicity data submitted for this expansion to the tolerance exemption, which showed that there was no evidence of carcinogenicity at the highest dose tested, 3,750 ppm (equivalent to 250 mg/kg/day), there are sufficient data and information to confirm that 1,4-DMN is not a carcinogen, and that consumption of food commodities that have been treated with this substance when used as a pesticide is safe and will not result in any harm to human health from dietary exposure.
In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).
Dietary risks to humans are considered negligible based on the lack of significant dietary toxicological endpoints for 1,4-DMN, its non-toxic mode of action, and the fact that it is applied to postharvest root, tuber, and bulb crops at the relatively low application rate of 20 ppm up to four applications during the storage season. No significant acute, subchronic, mutagenic, developmental, chronic, or carcinogenicity dietary toxicity hazards were identified in the studies submitted to support this expansion of the tolerance exemption or the previous tolerance exemption (60 FR 7456). The submitted data and information for this expansion of the tolerance exemption show that any residues of 1,4-DMN found in or on the sprouting root, tuber, and bulb crops are far below any toxicological endpoints identified in this expansion of the tolerance exemption or in the previous tolerance exemption (60 FR 7456) and confirm 1,4-DMN's lack of dietary toxicity hazards for mammals (Ref. 2).
1.
Based on the submitted data and information for this expansion of the tolerance exemption, any residues of 1,4-DMN found in or on the sprouting root, tuber, and bulb crops are far below any toxicological endpoints identified in this expansion of the tolerance exemption or in the previous tolerance exemption (60 FR 7456). These toxicological endpoints identified in Unit III of this final rule include: Maternal toxicity NOAEL of 80 mg/kg/day, developmental toxicity NOAEL greater than 250 mg/kg/day, reproductive toxicity NOAEL of 7,500 ppm (equivalent to 441 to 591 mg/kg/day in parental male and female rats and 776 to 839 mg/kg/day in F
2.
No new non-occupational exposure is expected to result from the new food uses of 1,4-DMN. No health risks are expected from any non-occupational exposure to 1,4-DMN based on the data submitted for the previous tolerance exemption (60 FR 7456) and for this expansion of the tolerance exemption.
1.
2.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] * * * residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found 1,4-DMN to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 1,4-DMN does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 1,4-DMN 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
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of exposure (safety), which are often referred to as uncertainty factors, are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly or through the use of a margin of exposure analysis, or by using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk.
Relevant data and information submitted for the previous tolerance exemption (60 FR 7456) and for this expansion of the tolerance exemption indicate that 1,4-DMN has negligible acute, subchronic, mutagenic, developmental, chronic, or carcinogenicity toxicity hazards. Moreover, 1,4-DMN has a nontoxic mode of action and naturally occurs in various crops as listed in Unit IV.A.1. Therefore, the Agency concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to the residues of 1,4-DMN. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA has arrived at this conclusion because the data and information available on 1,4-DMN do not demonstrate significant toxic potential to mammals. Thus, there are no threshold effects of concern and, as a result, an additional margin of safety is not necessary.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for the reasons stated above, and because EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for 1,4-DMN.
EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of 1,4-DMN. Therefore, the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the plant growth regulator, 1,4-DMN, when applied postharvest to potatoes is amended by establishing the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the plant growth regulator, 1,4-DMN, when applied postharvest to sprouting root, tuber, and bulb crops in accordance with good agricultural practices.
The following references used in this document and the previous Final Rule published in the
1. U.S. EPA. 2012. Memorandum from Gina M. Burnett to Colin Walsh. Science Review of Tolerance Petition 1F7920,
2. U.S. EPA. 2012. Memorandum from Russell S. Jones, Ph.D., to Colin Walsh. Science Review of Registrant's Response to Deficiencies in Tolerance Petition 1F7920, Intended to Expand the Use of 1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene to Include Use on All Root and Tuber Vegetables (Crop Group 01) and Bulb Vegetables (Crop Group 03); Label Amendments for 67727-1, -3 and -4 Upon Tolerance Amendment Approval. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. June 21, 2012.
This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption 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.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for the residues of the plant growth regulator, 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene (1,4-DMN), when applied postharvest to all sprouting root, tuber, and bulb crops in accordance with good agricultural practices.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Interim rule.
DoD is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement. This Trade Promotion Agreement is a free trade agreement that provides for mutually non-discriminatory treatment of eligible products and services from Panama.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2012-D044, using any of the following methods:
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6106.
This interim rule amends DFARS part 252 to implement the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 112-43) (19 U.S.C. 3805 note).
This Trade Promotion Agreement is designated in the FAR as the Panama Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The FTA provides for—
• Waiver of the applicability of the Buy American statute (41 U.S.C. chapter 83) for some foreign supplies and construction materials from Panama; and
• Applicability of specified procurement procedures designed to ensure fairness in the acquisition of supplies and services (see FAR 25.408).
This interim rule adds Panama to the definition of “Free Trade Agreement country” in multiple locations in the DFARS. The Panama FTA covers acquisitions of supplies and services equal to or exceeding $202,000. The Panama FTA threshold for supplies and services is higher than the threshold for supplies and services for most of the FTAs ($77,494), and equals the Bahrain, Morocco, and Peru FTA thresholds for supplies and services ($202,000). Therefore, for acquisition less than $202,000 (or $100,000 for Korea), all FTAs are applicable except for the Bahrain, Korea, Morocco, Panama, and Peru FTAs.
Because the Panama FTA's construction threshold of $7,777,000 is the same as the WTO GPA threshold, no new clause alternates are required for the Balance of Payments Program—
There are also conforming changes to the clause at DFARS 252.212-7001, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to Defense Acquisitions of Commercial Items.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2012-D044), in correspondence.
This rule affects the certification and information collection requirements in the provisions at DFARS 252.225-7020 and 252.225-7035, currently approved under OMB Control Number 0704-229, titled Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement part 225, Foreign Acquisition, and related clauses, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The impact, however, is negligible, because it is just a question of under which category offered goods from Panama would be listed. The rule also affects DFARS 252.225-7018, which is a variant of the Buy American-trade agreements certifications already approved, which was issued as an interim rule under DFARS Case 2011-D046 (76 FR 78858, December 20, 2011).
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment. This action is necessary because the Free Trade Agreement with Panama, for which the President signed the implementing legislation into law on October 21, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-043), took effect on October 31, 2012. This is a reciprocal agreement, approved by Congress and the President of the United States. It is important for the United States Government to honor its new trade obligations to Panama, as Panama in turn honors the new trade obligations to the United States. However, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707 and FAR 1.501-3(b), DoD will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
“Panamanian photovoltaic device” means an article that—
(i) Is wholly manufactured in Panama; or
(ii) In the case of an article that consists in whole or in part of materials from another country, has been substantially transformed in Panama into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed.
(c) * * *
(3) $77,494 or more but less than $100,000, then the Contractor shall utilize under this contract only domestic photovoltaic devices, qualifying country photovoltaic devices, or Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic devices (other than Bahrainian, Korean, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic devices), unless, in its offer, it specified utilization of other foreign photovoltaic devices in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of the Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate provision of the solicitation. If the Contractor certified in its offer that it will utilize a qualifying country photovoltaic device or a Free Trade
(4) $100,000 or more but less than $202,000, then the Contractor shall utilize under this contract only domestic photovoltaic devices, qualifying country photovoltaic devices, or Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic devices (other than Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian or Peruvian photovoltaic devices), unless, in its offer, it specified utilization of other foreign photovoltaic devices in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of the Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate provision of the solicitation. If the Contractor certified in its offer that it will utilize a qualifying country photovoltaic device or a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device), the Contractor shall utilize a qualifying country photovoltaic device; a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device), or, at the Contractor's option, a domestic photovoltaic device; or
(a)
(c) * * *
(4) If $77,494 or more but less than $100,000—
__(i) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a domestic photovoltaic device; a qualifying country (except Australian or Canadian) photovoltaic device; a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Korean, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) [
__(ii) The offered foreign photovoltaic devices (other than those from countries listed in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this provision) are the product of ______. [
(5) If $100,000 or more but less than $202,000—
__(i) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a domestic photovoltaic device; a qualifying country (except Australian or Canadian) photovoltaic device; a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) [
__(ii) The offered foreign photovoltaic devices (other than those from countries listed in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this provision) are the product of ______. [
(a) * * *
“Designated country” means—
(ii) A Free Trade Agreement country (Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Korea (Republic of), Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, or Singapore);
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) Will evaluate offers in accordance with the policies and procedures of Part 225 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; and
(2) For line items subject to Free Trade Agreements, will evaluate offers of qualifying country end products or Free Trade Agreement country end products other than Bahrainian end products, Moroccan end products, Panamanian end products, or Peruvian end products without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American or the Balance of Payments Program.
(c)
(i) Each end product, except the end products listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this provision, is a domestic end product; and
(ii) Components of unknown origin are considered to have been mined, produced, or manufactured outside the United States or a qualifying country.
(2) The offeror shall identify all end products that are not domestic end products.
(i) The offeror certifies that the following supplies are qualifying country (except Australian or Canadian) end products:
(ii) The offeror certifies that the following supplies are Free Trade Agreement country end products other than Bahrainian end products, Moroccan end products, Panamanian end products or Peruvian end products:
(iii) The following supplies are other foreign end products, including end products manufactured in the United States that do not qualify as domestic end products, i.e., an end product that is not a COTS item and does not meet the component test in paragraph (ii) of the definition of “domestic end product”:
As prescribed in 225.1101(10)(ii), substitute the phrase “Canadian end product” for the phrases “Bahrainian end product,” “Free Trade Agreement country,” “Free Trade Agreement country end product,” “Moroccan end product,” “Panamanian end product,” and “Peruvian end products” in paragraph (a) of the basic provision; substitute the phrase “Canadian end products” for the phrase “Free Trade Agreement country end products other than Bahrainian end products, Moroccan end products, or Peruvian end products” in paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2)(ii) of the basic provision; and delete the phrase “Australian or” from paragraph (c)(2)(i) of the basic provision.
As prescribed in 225.1101(10)(iii), add the terms “South Caucasus/Central and South Asian (SC/CASA) state” and “South Caucasus/Central and South Asian (SC/CASA) state end product” in paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2)(i) for paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2)(i) of the basic clause.
(b)(2) For line items subject to Free Trade Agreements, will evaluate offers of qualifying country end products, SC/CASA state end products, or Free Trade Agreement country end products other than Bahrainian end products, Moroccan end products, Panamanian end products, or Peruvian end products without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American or the Balance of Payments Program.
(c)(2)(i) The offeror certifies that the following supplies are qualifying country (except Australian or Canadian) or SC/CASA state end products:
As prescribed in 225.1101(10)(v), add a definition of “Korean end product” in paragraph (a) of the basic provision; substitute the phrase “Free Trade Agreement country end products other than Bahrainian end products, Korean end products, Moroccan end products, Panamanian end products, or Peruvian end products” for the phrase “Free Trade Agreement country end products other than Bahrainian end products, Moroccan end products, Panamanian end products, or Peruvian end products” in paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2)(ii) of the basic provision.
As prescribed in 225.1101(10)(vi), substitute the following paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (c)(2)(i), and (c)(2)(ii) for paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (c)(2)(i), and (c)(2)(ii) of the basic clause:
(a)
(b)(2) For line items subject to Free Trade Agreements, will evaluate offers of qualifying country end products, SC/CASA state end products, or Free Trade Agreement end products other than Bahrainian end products, Korean end products, Moroccan end products, Panamanian end products, or Peruvian end products without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American Act or the Balance of Payments Program.
(c)(2)(i) The offeror certifies that the following supplies are qualifying country (except Australian or Canadian) or SC/CASA state end products:
(ii) The offeror certifies that the following supplies are Free Trade Agreement country end products other than Bahrainian end products, Korean end products, Moroccan end products, Panamanian end products, or Peruvian end products:
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
“Panamanian end product” means an article that—
(i) Is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of Panama; or
(ii) In the case of an article that consists in whole or in part of materials from another country, has been substantially transformed in Panama into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed. The term refers to a product offered for purchase under a supply contract, but for purposes of calculating the value of the end product includes services (except transportation services) incidental to its supply, provided that the value of those incidental services does not exceed the value of the product itself.
(c) The Contractor shall deliver under this contract only domestic end
As prescribed in 225.1101(11)(i)(A), add the following new definitions to paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraph (c) for paragraph (c) of the basic clause:
(a) “South Caucasus/Central and South Asian (SC/CASA) state” means Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, or Uzbekistan.
“South Caucasus/Central and South Asian (SC/CASA) state end product” means an article that—
(i) Is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of an SC/CASA state; or
(ii) In the case of an article that consists in whole or in part of materials from another country, has been substantially transformed in an SC/CASA state into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed. The term refers to a product offered for purchase under a supply contract, but for purposes of calculating the value of the end product includes services (except transportation services) incidental to its supply, provided that the value of those incidental services does not exceed the value of the product itself.
(c) The Contractor shall deliver under this contract only domestic end products unless, in its offer, it specified delivery of qualifying country end products, SC/CASA state end products, Free Trade Agreement country end products other than Bahrainian end products, Moroccan end products, Panamanian end products, or Peruvian end products, or other foreign end products in the Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Balance of Payments Program Certificate provision of the solicitation. If the Contractor certified in its offer that it will deliver a qualifying country end product, SC/CASA state end products, or a Free Trade Agreement country end product other than a Bahrainian end product, a Moroccan end product, a Panamanian end product, or a Peruvian end product, the Contractor shall deliver a qualifying country end product, an SC/CASA state end product, a Free Trade Agreement country end product other than a Bahrainian end product, a Moroccan end product, a Panamanian end product, or a Peruvian end product or, at the Contractor's option, a domestic end product.
As prescribed in 225.1101(11)(i)(C), add the following definition to paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraph (c) for paragraph (c) of the basic clause:
(a) “Korean end product” means an article that—
(i) Is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of Korea; or
(ii) In the case of an article that consists in whole or in part of materials from another country, has been substantially transformed in Korea (Republic of) into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed. The term refers to a product offered for purchase under a supply contract, but for purposes of calculating the value of the end product includes services (except transportation services) incidental to its supply, provided that the value of those incidental services does not exceed the value of the product itself.
(c) The Contractor shall deliver under this contract only domestic end products unless, in its offer, it specified delivery of qualifying country end products, Free Trade Agreement country end products other than Bahrainian end products, Korean end products, Moroccan end products, Panamanian end products, or Peruvian end products, or other foreign end products in the Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Balance of Payments Program Certificate provision of the solicitation. If the Contractor certified in its offer that it will deliver a qualifying country end product or a Free Trade Agreement country end product other than a Bahrainian end product, a Korean end product, a Moroccan end product, a Panamanian end product, or a Peruvian end product, the Contractor shall deliver a qualifying country end product, a Free Trade Agreement country end product other than a Bahrainian end product, a Korean end product, a Moroccan end product, a Panamanian end product, or a Peruvian end product, or, at the Contractor's option, a domestic end product.
As prescribed in 225.1101(11)(i)(C), add the following new definitions to paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraph (c) for paragraph (c) of the basic clause:
(a) “Korean end product” means an article that—
(i) Is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of Korea; or
(ii) In the case of an article that consists in whole or in part of materials from another country, has been substantially transformed in Korea (Republic of) into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed. The term refers to a product offered for purchase under a supply contract, but for purposes of calculating the value of the end product includes services (except transportation services) incidental to its supply, provided that the value of those incidental services does not exceed the value of the product itself.
“South Caucasus/Central and South Asian (SC/CASA) state” means Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, or Uzbekistan.
“South Caucasus/Central and South Asian (SC/CASA) state end product” means an article that—
(i) Is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of an SC/CASA state; or
(ii) In the case of an article that consists in whole or in part of materials from another country, has been substantially transformed in an SC/CASA state into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed. The term refers to a product offered for purchase under a supply contract, but for purposes of calculating the value of the end product includes services (except transportation services) incidental to its supply, provided that the value of those incidental services does not exceed the value of the product itself.
(c) The Contractor shall deliver under this contract only domestic end products unless, in its offer, it specified delivery of qualifying country end products, SC/CASA state end products, Free Trade Agreement country end products other than Bahrainian end products, Korean end products, Moroccan end products, Panamanian end products, or Peruvian end products, or other foreign end products in the Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Balance of Payments Program Certificate provision of the solicitation. If the Contractor certified in its offer that it will deliver a qualifying country end product, SC/CASA state end products, or a Free Trade Agreement country end product other than a Bahrainian end product, a Korean end product, a Moroccan end product, a Panamanian end product, or a Peruvian end product, the Contractor shall deliver a qualifying country end product, an SC/CASA state end product, a Free Trade Agreement country end product other than a Bahrainian end product, a Korean end product, a Moroccan end product, a Panamanian end product, or a Peruvian end product or, at the Contractor's option, a domestic end product.
(a)
“Designated country” means—
(2) A Free Trade Agreement country (Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Korea (Republic of), Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, or Singapore);
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), a Rural Development agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), hereinafter referred to as RUS or the Agency, amends its regulations for the Community-Oriented Connectivity Broadband Grant Program (Community Connect Grant Program). The purpose of this regulatory change is to provide the Agency the ability to target limited resources to geographical as well as technological areas of need.
This rule is not applicable to Community Connect grant applications filed for funding prior to the publication of a Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) under this regulation.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 15, 2013.
Submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Additional information about the Agency and its programs is available on the Internet at
Kenneth Kuchno, Director, Broadband Division, USDA Rural Utilities Service, STOP 1599, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1599, Telephone (202) 690-4673, Facsimile (202) 690-4389. Email address:
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866, and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Program number assigned to the Community Connect Grant Program is 10.863. The Catalog is available on the Internet at
This program is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” as implemented under USDA's regulations at 7 CFR part 3015.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition, all state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule and, in accordance with section 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912(e)), administrative appeal procedures, must be exhausted before an action against the Department or its agencies may be initiated.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with states is not required.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), this rule related to grants is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provision of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule has been examined under Agency environmental regulations at 7 CFR part 1794. The Administrator has determined that this action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the environment. Therefore, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens under OMB control number 0572-0127 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Executive Order 13175 imposes requirements on Rural Development in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. Rural Development has determined that this proposed rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Additionally, two of the changes contained in this rule (rural eligibility based on a place recognized by the census or the Rand McNally
Rural Development is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
The Rural Utilities Service, a Rural Development agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (the Agency) works to improve the quality of life in rural America by providing investment capital, in the form of loans and grants, for the deployment of rural telecommunications, broadband, electric, water and environmental infrastructure. Financial assistance is provided to rural utilities; municipalities; commercial corporations; limited liability companies; public utility districts; Indian tribes; and cooperative, nonprofit, limited-dividend, or mutual associations. In order to achieve the goal of increasing economic opportunity in rural America, the Agency finances infrastructure that enables access to seamless, nation-wide telecommunications and broadband networks. With access to the same advanced telecommunications networks of its urban counterparts, especially broadband networks designed to accommodate distance learning, telework, e-government and telemedicine, rural America will see improving educational opportunities, health care, economies, safety and security, and ultimately higher employment. Of particular concern to the Agency are communities where broadband service is not available and where population densities are such that the cost of deployment to them is so high that build-out of infrastructure is unlikely. The Agency is committed to helping rural communities gain access to affordable, reliable, advanced communications services, comparable to those available throughout the rest of the United States, to provide a healthy, safe and prosperous place to live and work.
The Community Connect Grant Program was started as a Pilot Program. After administering the program as a pilot program for two years, the Agency proposed rules for the program and on July 28, 2004, the program was formally implemented. The regulations were amended to clarify, among other things, which rural communities are eligible under the program. The main purpose of this grant program is the construction of broadband facilities in areas where no broadband exists today with a secondary benefit of providing for a community center that provides free broadband service to all critical community facilities in the proposed funded service area for a two year period.
The new rule addresses several areas to streamline and improve the program for applicants and the Agency, with the goal of bringing broadband to unserved communities. The new rules provide flexibility to address the dynamic broadband needs of rural Americans and enhance the Agency's ability to target funds to areas where they are needed the most. The new rules also seek to make the application process easier for applicants and evaluators. For example, a single concise project summary and map can be used to inform USDA Rural Development State Directors of pending applications within their states as well as the general public. Major changes include:
1.
2.
3.
Broadband; Grant programs—Communications; Rural areas; Telecommunications; and Telephone.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Rural Utilities Service proposes to
1. Revise Part 1739 to read as follows:
Title III, Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3.
(a) The provision of broadband service is vital to the economic development, education, health, and safety of rural Americans. The purpose of the Community Connect Grant Program is to provide financial assistance in the form of grants to eligible applicants that will provide, on a “community-oriented connectivity” basis, broadband service that fosters economic growth and delivers enhanced educational, health care, and public safety benefits. The Agency will give priority to rural areas that have the greatest need for broadband services, based on the criteria contained herein and in the Notice of Funds Availability (hereinafter referred to as NOFA) published in the
(b) Grant authority will be used for the deployment of service to all premises in eligible rural areas at the Broadband Grant Speed on a “community-oriented connectivity” basis. In addition to providing service to all premises the “community-oriented connectivity” concept will stimulate practical, everyday uses and applications of broadband by cultivating the deployment of new broadband services that improve economic development and provide enhanced educational and health care opportunities in rural areas. Such an approach will also give rural communities the opportunity to benefit from the advanced technologies that are necessary to achieve these goals.
(a) The Agency will periodically publish, (usually on an annual basis) in the
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the Agency may, in response to a surplus of qualified eligible applications which could not be funded from the previous fiscal year, decline to publish a NOFA for the following fiscal year and fund said applications without further public notice.
As used in this subpart:
(i) A city, town, or incorporated area that has a population of greater than 20,000 inhabitants; or
(ii) An urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants. For purposes of the definition of rural area, an urbanized area means a densely populated territory as defined in the latest decennial census of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Applicants shall complete a notification form which will be a public document that the RUS provides to USDA Rural Development State Directors and others in the state(s) of the proposed funded service area. The notification shall include a brief project description and the location of the proposed funded service area.
To be eligible for a Community Connect competitive grant, the applicant must:
(a) Be legally organized as an incorporated organization, an Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(b) and (c), a state or local unit of government, or other legal entity, including cooperatives or private corporations or limited liability companies organized on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis.
(b) Have the legal capacity and authority to own and operate the broadband facilities as proposed in its application, to enter into contracts and to otherwise comply with applicable federal statutes and regulations.
(c) As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), all applicants for grants must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying. The Standard Form 424 (SF-424) contains a field for you to use when supplying your DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number costs nothing and requires a short telephone call to Dun and Bradstreet. Please see
(d) Register in the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly Central Contractor Registry (CCR).
(1) In accordance with 2 CFR part 25, applicants, whether applying electronically or by paper, must be registered in the SAM prior to submitting an application. Applicants may register for the SAM at
(2) The SAM registration must remain active, with current information, at all times during which an entity has an application under consideration by an agency or has an active Federal Award. To remain registered in the SAM database after the initial registration, the applicant is required to review and update, on an annual basis from the date of initial registration or subsequent updates, its information in the SAM database to ensure it is current, accurate and complete.
To be eligible for a Community Connect competitive grant, the Project must:
(a) Serve a PFSA in which Broadband Service does not currently exist.;
(b) Offer service at the Broadband Grant Speed to all residential and business customers within the PFSA;
(c) Offer free service at the Broadband Grant Speed to all Critical Community Facilities located within the PFSA for at least 2 years starting from the time service becomes available to each Critical Community Facility; and
(d) Provide a Community Center with at least two (2) Computer Access Points and wireless access at the Broadband Grant Speed, free of all charges to all users for at least 2 years.
Grant funds may be used to finance the following:
(a) The construction, acquisition, or leasing of facilities, including spectrum, land or buildings, used to deploy service at the Broadband Grant Speed to all residential and business customers located within the Proposed Funded Service Area and all participating Critical Community Facilities, including funding for up to ten Computer Access Points to be used in the Community Center. Leasing costs will only be covered through the advance of funds period included in the award documents;
(b) The improvement, expansion, construction, or acquisition of a Community Center and provision of Computer Access Points. Grant funds for the Community Center will be limited to ten percent of the requested grant amount;
(c) The cost of providing the necessary bandwidth for service free of charge to the Critical Community Facilities for 2 years.
Operating expenses not specifically permitted in § 1739.12.
(a) At the time of closing of the award, the awardee must contribute or demonstrate available cash reserves in an account(s) of the awardee equal to at least 15% of the grant. Matching contributions must be used solely for the Project and shall not include any financial assistance from federal sources unless there is a federal statutory exception specifically authorizing the federal financial assistance to be considered as such. An applicant must provide evidence of its ability to comply with this requirement in its application.
(b) At the end of every calendar quarter, the award must submit a schedule to RUS that identifies how the match contribution was used to support the project until the total contribution is expended.
Applications should be prepared in conformance with the provisions of this part and all applicable USDA regulations, including 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019. Applicants must also conform to the requirements of the individual NOFA to be published when funds are available for the program, and are advised to use the Agency's Application Guide for this program, found at the Agency's Web site. The application guide contains instructions and forms, as well as other important information needed to prepare an application and may be updated periodically. Paper copies of the application guide can be requested by contacting the, Director, Broadband Division at the following address: Stop 1599, South Agriculture Building, Room 2868, Washington, DC 20250. Completed applications must include the following documentation, studies, reports and information, in form and substance satisfactory to the Agency:
(a)
(b)
(1) A description of why the Project is needed;
(2) A description of the applicant;
(3) An explanation of the total Project costs;
(4) A general overview of the broadband telecommunications system to be developed, including the types of equipment, technologies, and facilities to be used;
(5) Documentation describing the procedures used to determine the unavailability of existing Broadband Service; and
(6) A list of the Critical Community Facilities that will take service from the Applicant at the Broadband Grant Speed, and evidence that any remaining Critical Community Facility located in the PFSA has rejected the offer;
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) A map, submitted electronically through RUS' web-based Mapping Tool,
(2) The total population, number of households, and number of businesses located within the PFSA;
(f)
(1) The specific activities and services to be performed under the Project;
(2) Who will carry out the activities and services;
(3) A construction build-out schedule and project milestones, showing the time-frames for accomplishing the Project objectives and activities on a quarterly basis; and
(4) A budget for all capital and administrative expenditures reflecting the line item costs for Eligible Grant Purposes and other sources of funds necessary to complete the Project;
(g)
(1) A listing of all participating Critical Community Facilities to be connected. The applicant must also provide documentation that it has consulted with the appropriate agent of every Critical Community Facility in the PFSA, and must provide statements from each one as to its willingness to participate, or not to participate, in the proposed Project;
(2) A description of the services the applicant will make available to local residents and businesses; and
(3) A list of any other telecommunications provider (including interexchange carriers, cable television operators, enhanced service providers, wireless service providers and providers of satellite services) that is participating in the delivery of services and a description of the consultations and the anticipated role of such provider in the Project;
(h)
(1) If the applicant is an existing company, it must provide complete copies of audited financial statements, if available, for the two fiscal years preceding the application submission. If audited statements are unavailable, the applicant must submit unaudited financial statements for those fiscal years. Applications from start-up entities must, at minimum, provide an opening balance sheet dated within 30 days of the application submission date; and
(2) Annual financial projections in the form of balance sheets, income statements, and cash flow statements for a forecast period of five years, which prove the sustainability of the Project for that period and beyond. These projections must be inclusive of the applicant's existing operations and the Project, and must be supported by a detailed narrative that fully explains the methodology and assumptions used to develop the projections, including details on the number of subscribers projected to take the applicant's services. Applicants submitting multiple applications for funding must demonstrate that each Project is feasible and sustainable on its own, funds are available to cover each of the matching requirements and that all Projects for which funding is being requested are financially feasible as a whole;
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(1) 7 CFR part 15, subpart A—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
(2) 7 CFR part 3015—Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations;
(3) 2 CFR part 417—Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension;
(4) 7 CFR part 3018—New Restrictions on Lobbying;
(5) 2 CFR part 421—Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance);
(6) Certification regarding Architectural Barriers;
(7) Certification regarding Flood Hazard Precautions;
(8) An environmental report/questionare, in accordance with 7 CFR part 1794;
(9) A certification that grant funds will not be used to duplicate lines, facilities, or systems providing Broadband Service;
(10) Federal Obligation Certification on Delinquent Debt; and
(11) Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.
(a) All applications for grants must be delivered to the Agency at the address and by the date specified in the NOFA (
(b) Incomplete applications as of the deadline for submission will not be considered. If an application is determined to be incomplete, the applicant will be notified in writing and the application will be returned with no further action.
(c) If the Agency determines that the Project is technically or financially infeasible or unsustainable, the Agency will notify the applicant, in writing, and the application will be returned with no further action.
(d) Applications conforming with this part will be evaluated competitively by the Agency and will be ranked in accordance with § 1739.17 below. Applications will then be awarded generally in rank order until all grant funds are expended, subject to subparagraphs (e) and (f) below.
(e) In addition to scoring, the Agency may take geographic distribution into consideration when making final award determinations.
(f) An award may be made out of rank order if a higher ranked application would require an award that exceeded available funding or would consume a disproportionate amount of funds available relative to its ranking.
(g) The Agency reserves the right to offer an applicant a lower amount than proposed in the application.
The ranking of the “community-oriented connectivity” benefits of the
(a) An analysis of the challenges of the following criteria, laid out on a community-wide basis, and how the Project proposes to address these issues (up to 50 point):
(1) The economic characteristics;
(2) Educational challenges;
(3) Health care needs; and
(4) Public safety issues;
(b) The extent of the Project's planning, development, and support by local residents, institutions, and Critical Community Facilities. Documentation must include evidence of community-wide involvement, as exemplified by community meetings, public forums, and surveys. In addition, applicants should provide evidence of local residents' participation in the Project planning and development (up to 40 points).
(c) The level of experience and past success of operating broadband systems for the management team. (up to 10 points)
(d) In making a final selection among and between applications with comparable rankings and geographic distribution, the Administrator may take into consideration the characteristics of the PFSA. Only information provided in the application will be considered. Applicants should therefore specifically address each of the following criteria to differentiate their applications:
(i) Persistent poverty counties that will be served within the PFSA;
(ii) Out-migration Communities that will be served within the PFSA;
(iii) The rurality of the PFSA;
(iv) The speed of service provided by the project;
(v) Substantially underserved trust areas that will be served within the PFSA;
(vi) Community members with disabilities that will be served within the PFSA; and
(vi) Any other additional factors that may be outlined in the NOFA.
The terms and conditions of grants shall be set forth in grant documents prepared by the Agency. The documents shall require the applicant to own all equipment and facilities financed by the grant. Among other matters, the Agency may prescribe conditions to the advance of funds that address concerns regarding the Project feasibility and sustainability. The Agency may also prescribe terms and conditions applicable to the construction and operation of the Project and the delivery of service at the Broadband Grant Speed to eligible Rural Areas, as well as other terms and conditions applicable to the individual Project. Dividend distributions will not be allowed until all grant funds and matching contributions have been expended.
(a) A project performance activity report will be required of all recipients on an annual basis until the Project is complete and the funds are expended by the applicant. The reporting period will start with the calendar year the award is made and continue for every calendar year through the term of the award. The report must be submitted by January 31 of the following year if the reporting period. Recipients are to submit an original and one copy of all project performance reports, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
(2) A description of any problems, delays, or adverse conditions which have occurred, or are anticipated, and which may affect the attainment of overall Project objectives, prevent the meeting of time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular Project work elements during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and
(3) Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.
(b) A final project performance report must be provided by the recipient. It must provide an evaluation of the success of the Project in meeting the objectives of the program. The final report may serve as the last annual report.
(c) The Agency will monitor recipients, as it determines necessary, to assure that Projects are completed in accordance with the approved scope of work and that the grant is expended for Eligible Grant Purposes.
(d) Recipients shall diligently monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, projected work within designated time periods is being accomplished, and other performance objectives are being achieved.
(e) The applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements for first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 in the event the applicant receives funding unless such applicant is exempt from such reporting requirements pursuant to 2 CFR part 170, § 170.110(b). The reporting requirements under the Transparency Act pursuant to 2 CFR part 170 are as follows:
(1) First Tier Sub-Awards of $25,000 or more in non-Recovery Act funds (unless they are exempt under 2 CFR part 170) must be reported by the Recipient to
(2) The Total Compensation of the Recipient's Executives (5 most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Recipient (if the Recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to
(3) The Total Compensation of the Subrecipient's Executives (5 most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Subrecipient (if the Subrecipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to the Recipient by the end of the month following the month in which the subaward was made.
A grant recipient shall provide the Agency with an audit for each year in which a portion of the financial assistance is expended, in accordance with the following:
(a) If the recipient is a for-profit entity, an existing Telecommunications or Electric Borrower with the Agency, or any other entity not covered by the following paragraph, the recipient shall provide an independent audit report in accordance with 7 CFR part 1773, “Policy on Audits of the Agency's Borrowers.”
(b) If the recipient is a State or local government, or non-profit organization, the recipient shall provide an audit in accordance with 7 CFR part 3052, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.”
The information collection requirements in this part are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB control number 0572-0127.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time detailed inspection of both main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams in the region of the bogie stop pad for detection of deformation and damage, and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued that AD, we have received reports of corroded bogie stop pads, including some with cracking. This proposed AD would add Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes to the applicability. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also add repetitive inspections for damage and corrosion of the sliding piston sub-assembly, with new related investigative and corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct deformation or damage under the bogie stop pad of both MLG bogie beams, which could result in a damaged bogie beam and consequent detachment of the beam from the airplane or collapse of the MLG and departure of the airplane from the runway.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 31, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 14, 2010, we issued AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes.
Since we issued AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0211, dated October 31, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to supersede EASA AD 2008-0223, dated December 15, 2008 (referred to in the existing AD), and correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During a scheduled maintenance inspection on the MLG [main landing gear], the bogie stop pad was found deformed and cracked. Upon removal of the bogie stop pad for replacement, the bogie beam was also found cracked.
Laboratory investigation indicates that an overload event has occurred and no fatigue propagation of the crack was evident.
A second bogie beam crack has subsequently been found on another aeroplane, located under a bogie stop pad which only had superficial paint damage.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the aeroplane departing the runway or to the bogie detaching from the areoplane or gear collapses, which would all constitute unsafe conditions at speeds above 30 knots.
As a precautionary measure, EASA AD 2008-0223 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010] required one-time detailed inspections under the bogie stop pad of both MLG bogie beams and, in case deformation or damage is detected, to apply the associated repair.
Numerous bogie stop pad were found corroded and a few cracked as a result of the one-time inspection required by EASA AD 2008-0223 on A330, A340-200, and A340-300 aeroplanes.
For the reasons describe above, this [EASA] AD, which supersedes EASA AD 2008-0223:
The required actions include repetitive detailed inspections for
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Airbus has issued the following service bulletins:
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, Revision 01, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes).
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes).
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes).
The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Although the service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions to repair certain conditions, this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA (or its delegated agent).
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 67 products of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010), and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $170 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 16 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $91,120, or $1,360 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010), and adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by December 31, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010).
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 series airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313 series airplanes; and A340-541 and -642 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of corroded bogie stop pads, some with cracking. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct deformation or damage under the bogie stop pad of both main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams, which could result in a damaged bogie beam and consequent detachment of the beam from the airplane or collapse of the MLG and departure of the airplane from the runway.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010), with revised service information. For Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), or (g)(6) of this AD, perform one-time detailed inspections of both MLG bogie beams in the region of the bogie stop pad for detection of deformation and damage, and apply the applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(7) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(1) Airplanes with 22 months or less and 2,500 flight cycles or less from the first flight with the original bogie beam as of March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010)): Not earlier than 2,500 flight cycles or 22 months on the original bogie beam, whichever occurs first, but not later than 40 months from first flight.
(2) Airplanes with 22 months or less and 2,500 flight cycles or less from the installation date of a new bogie beam in service as of March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010)): Not earlier than 2,500 flight cycles or 22 months from the installation date of the new bogie beam, whichever occurs first, but not later than 40 months from the installation date of a new bogie beam in service.
(3) Airplanes with 22 months or less and 2,500 flight cycles or less from the installation date of an overhauled bogie beam in service as of March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010)): Not earlier than 2,500 flight cycles or 22 months from the installation date of the overhauled bogie beam in service, whichever occurs first, but not later than 40 months from the installation date of the overhauled bogie beam in service.
(4) Airplanes with more than 22 months or more than 2,500 flight cycles from the first flight with the original bogie beam, as of March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010)): Within 18 months after March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10).
(5) Airplanes with more than 22 months or more than 2,500 flight cycles from the installation date of a new bogie beam in service, as of March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010)): Within 18 months after March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10).
(6) Airplanes with more than 22 months or more than 2,500 flight cycles from the installation date of an overhauled bogie beam in service, as of March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010)): Within 18 months after March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10).
(7) Use the applicable service information to accomplish the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(i) For Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, dated October 10, 2008; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, Revision 01, dated October 5, 2011.
(ii) For Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4264, dated October 10, 2008.
(iii) For Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5087, dated October 10, 2008.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010). Report the results of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, including no findings, to Airbus, Customer Services Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex France; Attn: SEDCC1 Technical Data and Documentation Services; fax (+33) 5 61 93 28 06; email
(1) If the inspection is done on or after March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010)): Submit the report within 30 days after doing the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done prior to March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010)): Submit the report within 30 days after March 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-02-10).
For bogie beams on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD has not been accomplished as of the effective date of this AD: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, perform one-time detailed inspections of both main landing gear bogie beams in the region of the bogie stop pad for detection of deformation and damage, and apply the applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(1) At the applicable time in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For bogie beams that have not been overhauled: Not earlier than 2,500 flight cycles or 22 months, whichever occurs first, on a bogie beam since its first flight on an airplane since new, but not later than 40 months since its first flight on an airplane since new.
(ii) For bogie beams that have been overhauled: Not earlier than 2,500 flight cycles or 22 months, whichever occurs first, on a bogie beam since its first flight on an airplane after its most recent overhaul, but not later than 40 months since its first flight on an airplane after its most recent overhaul.
(2) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) Use the applicable service information specified in paragraph (i)(3)(i), (i)(3)(ii), or (i)(3)(iii) of this AD, to accomplish the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(i) For Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, Revision 01, dated October 5, 2011.
(ii) For Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4264, dated October 10, 2008.
(iii) For Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5087, dated October 10, 2008.
Except for bogie beams that have been inspected as specified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5087: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, do the detailed inspection of both MLG bogie beams in the bogie stop pad area for damage and corrosion, and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes); except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight cycles or 24 months, whichever is first.
(1) Within 2,500 flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first, accumulated by a MLG bogie beam since its first flight after the most recent accomplishment of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3220 or A340-32-4264, as applicable.
(2) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
If any cracking of the bogie beam is detected during any inspection or repair required by paragraph (j) of this AD, or any repair required by paragraph (j) of this AD is beyond the maximum repair allowance specified in the service information required by paragraph (j) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
Report the results of the initial inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, including both positive and negative findings, to Airbus, Customer Services Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex France; Attn: SEDCC1 Technical Data and Documentation Services; fax (+33) 5 61 93 28 06; email
(1) If the inspection is done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after doing the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed if any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD.
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0211, dated October 1, 2011, and the service information specified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (o)(1)(vi) of this AD, for related information.
(i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, dated October 10, 2008.
(ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, Revision 01, dated October 5, 2011.
(iii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, dated October 5, 2011.
(iv) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4264, dated October 10, 2008.
(v) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, dated October 5, 2011.
(vi) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-5087, dated October 10, 2008.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) BR700-710A1-10 and BR700-710A2-20 turbofan engines, and certain BR700-710C4-11 model engines. This proposed AD was prompted by RRD performing an evaluation that determined that certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 and stage 2 discs from a specific supplier may contain steel inclusions that may cause the discs to fail before they reach their current life limits. This proposed AD would require reducing the life limits for certain HPT stage 1 and stage 2 discs. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage 1 and stage 2 discs, which could result in uncontained failure of the engine and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 15, 2013.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: 49 0 33-7086-1883; fax: 49 0 33-7086-3276. You may view this 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
Robert Morlath, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7154; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2012-0166, dated August 30, 2012 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
The results of a recent quality review of high pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 and stage 2 discs identified potential for steel inclusions in some production scale parts. Further investigation concluded that all affected parts were manufactured by Udimet 720I and melted by a certain supplier. Subsequent evaluation concluded that the affected parts life limitation values declared in the engine Time Limits Manual cannot be supported for discs with potential steel inclusion.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncontained HPT disc failure, potentially resulting in damage to, and/or reduced control of the aeroplane.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Germany, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require reducing the life limits for certain HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 discs that have a serial number listed in this proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 10 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. Prorated parts life will cost about $210,000. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,100,000. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by January 15, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to the following Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) turbofan engines that have any of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 or stage 2 discs with a serial number (S/N) listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, installed:
(1) RRD BR700-710A1-10 and BR700-710A2-20 turbofan engines; and
(2) BR700-710C4-11 model engines that have hardware configuration standard 710C4-11 or 710C4-11/10 engraved on the engine data plate.
This AD was prompted by RRD performing an evaluation that determined that certain HPT stage 1 and stage 2 discs from a specific supplier may contain steel inclusions that may cause the discs to fail before they reach their current life limits. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage 1 and stage 2 discs, which could result in uncontained failure of the engine and damage to the airplane.
Unless already done, remove from service the HPT stage 1 and stage 2 discs listed by S/N in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, at the following:
(1) For BR700-710A1-10, BR700-710A2-20, and BR700-710C4-11 engine models (without RRD Mod 72-101466), remove the HPT stage 1 and stage 2 discs from service before accumulating 3,000 cycles-since-new (CSN).
(2) For the BR700-710C4-11 engine model (with RRD Mod 72-101466), remove the HPT stage 1 and stage 2 discs from service before accumulating 2,300 CSN.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install an HPT stage 1 and an HPT stage 2 disc, identified by S/N in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, in the same engine.
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 Robert Morlath, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7154; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0166, dated August 30, 2012, and Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Alert Service Bulletin SB-BR700-72-A900508, dated July 26, 2012, for related information. Contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: 49 0 33-7086-1883; fax: 49 0 33-7086-3276, for a copy of this service information.
(3) You may view this 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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Hot Springs, SD. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Hot Springs Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport. Geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated.
0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before December 31, 2012.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2012-0655/Airspace Docket No. 12-AGL-6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-7716.
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 and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2012-0655/Airspace Docket No. 12-AGL-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
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
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at Hot Springs Municipal Airport, Hot Springs, SD. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The airport's geographic coordinates also would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012 and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of 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 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 amend controlled airspace at Hot Springs Municipal Airport, Hot Springs, SD.
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).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 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 FAA 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 700 feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of Hot Springs Municipal Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 021° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 12.1 miles north of the airport.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
With this notice, OSHA is withdrawing the proposed rule that accompanied its direct-final rule revising its Head Protection standards for general industry, shipyard employment, marine terminals, longshoring, and construction.
Effective November 16, 2012, the proposed rule published June 22, 2012 (77 FR 37617), is withdrawn.
OSHA is publishing a notice announcing this determination and confirming the effective date of the direct-final rule as September 20, 2012. Accordingly, OSHA is not proceeding with the proposed rule, and is withdrawing it from the rulemaking process.
Head protection, Occupational safety and health, Safety.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this document. OSHA is issuing this document pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone encompassing certain waters of the Upper Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during a fireworks display launched from a barge located within the Alexandria Channel at Washington, DC. This safety zone is intended to protect the maritime public in a portion of the Upper Potomac River.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 17, 2012. If finalized, this rule would be effective from 10:30 p.m. on December 31, 2012 through 9 p.m. on January 1, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ronald L. Houck, Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (410) 576-2674, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
This rule involves a New Years Eve fireworks display, an event that takes place in Alexandria, Virginia each year on December 31st and attracts thousands of spectators. This year, the launch site for the annual fireworks display is being moved from land to a discharge barge located on the Upper Potomac River. The permanent safety zone listed as Number 21 in the Table to 33 CFR 165.506 does not apply to this event.
First Night Alexandria, of Alexandria, Virginia, will conduct a fireworks display launched from a barge located on the Upper Potomac River, near Alexandria, Virginia, scheduled on December 31, 2012 at approximately 12 a.m. Midnight. If necessary, due to inclement weather, the fireworks display may be re-scheduled to take place on January 1, 2013 at approximately 8 p.m.
Fireworks displays are frequently held from locations on or near the navigable waters of the United States. The potential hazards associated with fireworks displays are a safety concern during such events. The purpose of this rule is to promote public and maritime safety during a fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display, such as the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is needed to ensure safety on the waterway before, during and after the scheduled event.
Through this regulation, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone. The proposed zone would encompass all waters of the Upper Potomac River, Alexandria Channel, within a 200 yards radius of a fireworks discharge barge in approximate position latitude 38°48′40″ N, longitude 077°02′07″ W, located near the waterfront of Alexandria, Virginia. The temporary safety zone would be enforced from 10:30 p.m. on December 31, 2012 through 1 a.m. on January 1, 2013 and, if necessary due to inclement weather, from 6:30 p.m. through 9 p.m. on January 1, 2013.
The effect of this temporary safety zone would be to restrict navigation in the regulated area during, as well as the set up and take down of, the fireworks display. Vessels would be allowed to transit the waters of the Upper Potomac River outside the safety zone.
This rule would require that entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. Vessels already at berth, mooring, or anchor in the safety zone at the time the safety zone is implemented would not have to depart the zone. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented would have to depart the zone. To seek permission to transit the area of the safety zone, the Captain of the Port Baltimore can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Federal, state, and local agencies may assist the Coast Guard in the enforcement of the safety zone. The Coast Guard will issue notices to the maritime community to further publicize the safety zone and notify the public of changes in the status of the zone. Such notices will continue until the event is complete.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. There is no vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing expected during the effective period.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or transit through or within the safety zone during the enforcement period. Before the effective period, maritime advisories will be widely available to the maritime community.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the “For Further Information Contact” section to coordinate protest activities so that your
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T05-0969 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. Vessels already at berth, mooring, or anchor at the time the safety zone is implemented do not have to depart the safety zone. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.
(4)
(c)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.
EPA is reopening the comment period for a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on September 7, 2012. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of a revision to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) that would incorporate EPA's “Biomass Deferral” into the Maryland SIP. At the request of Community Research, (College Park, Maryland), EPA is reopening the comment period. Comments submitted between the close of the original comment period and the re-opening of this comment period will be accepted and considered.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on September 7, 2012 (77 FR 55171) is reopened through December 17, 2012. All comments received on or before December 17, 2012 will be entered into the public record and considered by EPA before taking final action on the proposed rule.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0305 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Mr. David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
In this document, Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding filed by Dale Woodin, Executive Director of American Society for Healthcare Engineering of American Hospital Association, on behalf of American Society for Healthcare Engineering of the American Hospital Association, and David R. Sidall, Esq., for DS Law PLLC, on behalf of Phillips Healthcare, Ari Q. Fitzgerald, Esq., for Hogan Lovells US LLP, on behalf of GE Healthcare, and William K. Keane, Esq., for Duane Morris LLP, on behalf of AFTRCC.
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before December 3, 2012. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before December 11, 2012.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Brian Butler, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2702, email
This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 2966, released October 31, 2012. The full text of Report No. 2966 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). The Commission will not send a copy of this
Number of Petitions Filed: 2.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
In this document, Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Dennis Farrell, International Sales Manager of Navtech Radar Ltd., on behalf of Navtech Radar Ltd. and Bruce A. Olcott, for Squire Sanders LLP, on behalf of Honeywell International, Inc.
Oppositions to these Petitions must be filed on or before December 3, 2012. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before December 11, 2012.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Aamer Zain, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2473, email
This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 2965, released October 31, 2012. The full text of Report No. 2965 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). The Commission will not send a copy of this
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Announcement of technical symposium and extension of comment period.
On October 18, 2012, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory Reporting Requirements. In the NPRM, FRA announced that it would schedule a technical symposium to give interested parties the opportunity to discuss issues associated with the electronic submission of data to the U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory (Crossing Inventory). This notice announces the scheduling of the technical symposium. This notice also extends the NPRM comment period to allow time for interested parties to submit comments after the technical symposium.
The technical symposium will be held on December 13, 2012 in Washington, DC and will commence at 10 a.m. The comment period in this proceeding is extended to January 31, 2013.
(1)
(2)
For information on facilities or services for persons with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Larry Woolverton in FRA's Office of Railroad Safety, by telephone (202-493-6212) or email (
The purpose of the technical symposium is to facilitate discussion on technical issues associated with the electronic submission of data to the Crossing Inventory. The meeting is not intended as a forum for discussion or comment on any other aspects of the proposed rule. The proposed topics for discussion include the draft Instructions for Submitting U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Data by Electronic Methods (Electronic Submission Instructions) referenced in the NPRM (and available in the docket at FRA-2011-0007-0005), proposed options for the submission of electronic crossing data to the Crossing Inventory, data formats that would be accepted for the submission of electronic crossing data to the Crossing Inventory, and the proposed timeframe and related concerns associated with meeting the proposed new requirements for the electronic submission of crossing data to the Crossing Inventory. In order to facilitate discussion at the technical symposium, FRA intends to supplement the docket with revised draft Electronic Submission Instructions prior to the symposium. The revised draft Electronic Submission Instructions will contain information on the proposed file formats and data specifications that would need to be followed when preparing electronic crossing data for submission to the Crossing Inventory. Therefore, interested parties are advised to review, prior to attending the technical symposium, the draft revised Electronic Submission Instructions that will be placed in the docket. Parties are reminded that the docket (No. FRA-2011-0007) can be accessed via the Internet at
A transcript of the technical symposium will be taken and placed in the public docket of this proceeding.
Any person wishing to participate in the technical symposium should notify FRA by telephone, email, or mail as provided in the Attendance section of this notice at least five business days prior to the date of the technical symposium. The notification should identify the docket number of this proceeding (Docket No. FRA-2011-0007), as well as the organization the person represents (if any) and the particular issues associated with electronic data submission that the person plans to address. The notification should also provide a phone number, mailing address, and email address (if applicable) at which the registrant can be reached.
To afford interested parties the opportunity to submit comments in response to views or information provided at the technical symposium, FRA is extending the comment period in this proceeding to January 31, 2013.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed specifications; request for comments.
NMFS proposes specifications for the 2013 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries, and the 2014 summer flounder and scup fisheries, and provides notice of two projects that may be requesting exempted fishing permits as part of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Research Set-Aside Program. The implementing regulations for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan require NMFS to publish specifications for the upcoming fishing year for each of these species and to provide an opportunity for public comment. Furthermore, regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require that NMFS allow the public an opportunity to comment on applications for exempted fishing permits. Accordingly, in addition to proposing catch specifications, NMFS announces exempted fishing permit requests, in accordance with the fishery management plan and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2012.
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for the specifications and describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives, and provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of the Specifications Document, including the EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the Internet at
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0201, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Moira Kelly, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9218.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) cooperatively manage the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. Fishery specifications in these fisheries include various catch and landing subdivisions, such as the commercial and recreational sector annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), sector-specific landing limits (i.e., the commercial fishery quota and recreational harvest limit (RHL)), and research set-aside (RSA) established for the upcoming fishing year. An explanation of each subdivision appears later in this rule.
Rulemaking for measures used to manage the recreational fisheries for these three species occurs separately and typically takes place in the first quarter of the fishing year. The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing regulations establish the Council's process for establishing specifications. All requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), including the 10 national standards, also apply to specifications.
The management units specified in the FMP include summer flounder (
The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) met on July 25 and 26, 2012, to recommend acceptable biological catches (ABC) for the 2013-2015 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. The FMP's implementing regulations require the involvement of a monitoring committee in the specification process for each species. Since the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for the SSC to recommend ABC became effective, the monitoring committees' role has largely been to recommend any reduction in catch limits from the SSC-recommended ABCs to offset management uncertainty, and to recommend other management measures (e.g., mesh requirements, minimum commercial fish sizes, gear restrictions, possession restrictions, and area restrictions) needed for the efficient management of these three species' fisheries. The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committees met on July 27, 2012, to discuss specification-related recommendations for the three fisheries.
Following the SSC and Monitoring Committee meetings, the Council and the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board (Board) considered the recommendations of the SSC, the three monitoring committees, and public comments, and made their specification recommendations at a meeting held on August 15, 2012. While the Board action was finalized at the August meeting, the Council's recommendations must be reviewed by NMFS to ensure that they comply with the FMP and applicable law. NMFS also must conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking to propose and implement the final specifications.
The FMP also contains formulas to divide the specification catch limits into commercial and recreational fishery allocations, state-by-state quotas, and quota periods, depending on the species in question. The FMP allocation provisions cannot be modified through the specification process. Rather, the Council would be required to develop and recommend allocation changes by amending the FMP. This proposed rule outlines the application of the existing allocation provisions for each species and provides the resulting allocations, by state and sector, as appropriate, for each species.
In 2001, NMFS implemented regulations under Framework Adjustment 1 to the FMP to allow up to 3 percent of the total allowable landings (TAL) for each species to be set aside each year to support scientific research. NMFS intends to conditionally approve two research projects to harvest a portion of the set-aside quota that has been recommended by the Council and the Commission. In anticipation of receiving applications for exempted fishing permits (EFP) to conduct this research and harvest set-aside quota, the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFPs would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP. However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue any EFP.
For informational purposes, these proposed specifications include a statement indicating the amount of quota that has been preliminarily set aside for research purposes (a percentage of the TAL for each fishery, not to exceed 3 percent, as recommended by the Council and Board), and a brief description of the likely 2013 Mid-Atlantic RSA projects, including exemptions that will likely be required to conduct the proposed research. The RSA amounts may be adjusted, following consultation with RSA applicants, in the final rule establishing the 2013 specifications for the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, longfin squid, butterfish, and Atlantic bluefish fisheries. If the total amount of available RSA is not awarded, NMFS will publish a document in the
For 2013, the conditionally approved projects may collectively be awarded up to the following amounts of RSA: 589,880 lb (267.6 mt) of summer flounder; 961,200 lb (436 mt) of scup; 111,900 lb (51 mt) of black sea bass; 1,1453,711 lb of longfin squid; 332,898 lb of butterfish; and 715,830 lb of bluefish. For 2014, projects may collectively be awarded up to 587,100 lb (266 mt) of summer flounder and 896,100 lb (404 mt) of scup. The harvest of RSA quota would occur January 1-December 31, 2013, and January 1-December 31, 2014, by vessels conducting compensation fishing.
Project number two is a fishery-independent black sea bass survey of four separate hard bottom sites in Southern New England and Mid‐Atlantic waters. Unvented black sea bass pots would be fished on each site for 5 months from June through October in Southern New England, and April through August in the Mid‐Atlantic. The project is designed to collect black sea bass from areas un‐sampled by current state and Federal finfish bottom trawl surveys. The length frequency distribution of the catch will be compared statistically to each of the other collection sites, and to finfish trawl data collected by NMFS and state agencies. Black sea bass would be collected from four general zones along the coast utilizing black sea bass pots made with coated wire mesh, single mesh entry head, and single mesh inverted parlor nozzle. The four general zones will include one in Massachusetts, one south of Rhode Island, one south of New Jersey, and one south of Virginia. This particular configuration is being proposed as it generally corresponds to the northern and southern core range of the species, and each is an area in which a major black sea bass fishery takes place. In each of these general zones, four individual sampling sites would be selected, each of which would be 1 square mile (2.6 km
Research vessels for project number two would require an EFP for exemption from minimum scup and black sea bass pot vent size requirements to ensure that black sea bass length frequency data are representative and not biased. If a participating vessel holds a Federal lobster permit, it would need exemption from lobster pot vent size requirements. Exemption from scup and black sea bass closures and time restrictions would also be needed to ensure the survey is not disrupted by such regulations. Exemption from scup and black sea bass minimum fish sizes and possession limits would also be needed for data collection purposes only. All undersized fish would be discarded as soon as practicable to minimize mortality, and fish in excess of possession limits would either be discarded as soon as practicable or landed as RSA quota.
The summer flounder stock was declared rebuilt in 2011. The stock assessment update utilized to derive specification recommendations indicates that summer flounder were not overfished and that overfishing did not occur in 2011, the most recent year of available data. This stock assessment update did, however, indicate that biomass is currently lower than in recent years. This results in catch limits that are lower than 2012 (Table 1).
The overfishing limit (OFL) for 2012 was estimated to be 29.81 million lb (13,523 mt). Based on this information, the SSC recommended to the Council that the 2013 ABC for summer flounder be set no higher than 22.34 million lb (10,133 mt), and, using a strategy of a constant fishing rate, that the 2014 ABC for summer flounder be set no higher than 22.24 million lb (10,088 mt). The SSC did not provide an ABC recommendation for 2015 because it is expected that a benchmark assessment for summer flounder will be conducted in 2013 and it would be more appropriate to wait for that assessment before making a 2015 recommendation.
Consistent with the summer flounder regulations, the sum of the recreational and commercial sector ACLs is equal to ABC. ACL is an expression of total catch (i.e., landings and dead discarded fish). To derive the ACLs, the sum of the sector-specific estimated discards is removed from the ABC to derive the landing allowance. The resulting landing allowance is apportioned to the commercial and recreational sectors by applying the FMP allocation criteria: 60 percent to the commercial fishery and 40 percent to the recreational fishery. Using this method ensures that each sector is accountable for its respective discards, rather than simply apportioning the ABC by the allocation percentages to derive the sector ACLs. Although the derived ACLs are not split exactly at 60/40, the landing portions of the ACLs preserve the 60/40 allocation split, consistent with the FMP. This process results in a commercial ACL of 12.11 million lb (5,491 mt) for 2013 and 12.05 million lb (5,467 mt) for 2014. The recreational ACLs would be 10.23 million lb (4,642 mt) for 2013 and 10.19 million lb (4,621 mt) for 2014.
The Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee met to discuss the SSC's recommendations and to determine if additional reductions in the catch limits were necessary to account for management uncertainty. Because the recreational fishery in recent years has not reached the RHL, discards in the commercial fishery have been relatively low, and the landings monitoring and fishery closure system is timely, the Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee determined that no additional reductions to account for management uncertainty were necessary. Therefore, it was recommended that the ACTs (both commercial and recreational) should be set equal to their respective ACL for both 2013 and 2014. Removing the estimated discards and, as recommended, 3 percent of the TAL for RSA, the commercial summer flounder quotas would be 11.44 million lb (5,189 mt) for 2013 and 11.39 million lb (5,166 mt) for 2014. The RHLs would be 7.63 million lb (3,459 mt) for 2013 and 7.59 million lb (3,444 mt) for 2014.
The Council and Board considered the SSC and Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee recommendations before concurring with the catch recommendations specified in Table 2. Fishing under these catch limits for 2013 and 2014 is not expected to compromise the summer flounder stock, nor will fishing at this level present a high likelihood of overfishing the stock. The Council recommended all other management measures by remain status quo.
Tables 3 and 4 present the proposed allocations for 2013 and 2014, respectively, by state, with and without the commercial portion of the RSA deduction. These state quota allocations are preliminary and are subject to reductions if there are overages of states' quotas carried over from a previous fishing year. Any commercial quota adjustments to account for overages will be included in the final rule implementing these specifications.
The OFL for scup is 47.80 million lb (21,680 mt). Using the appropriate control rule and applying the Council's risk policy, the SSC recommended an ABC for scup of 38.71 million lb (17,557 mt) for 2013. The SSC also recommended a constant fishing mortality strategy for scup, using a rate of 0.142, which results in a 2014 ABC of 35.99 million lb (16,325 mt). Similar to summer flounder, the stock assessment update upon which the specifications are based indicates that scup biomass is currently lower than in recent years. Therefore, the proposed catch limits are lower than 2012, but are still relatively high compared to recent landings.
The scup management measures specify that the ABC is equal to the sum of the commercial and recreational sector ACLs. The Scup Monitoring Committee met to discuss the SSC's recommendations and to determine if additional reductions in the catch limits were necessary to account for management uncertainty. Because both the recreational and commercial fisheries have not reached their respective landings limits because of the very high quotas, and the landings monitoring and fishery closure system is timely, the Monitoring Committee determined that no additional reductions to account for management uncertainty were necessary. Therefore, it was recommended that the ACTs (both commercial and recreational) should be set equal to the respective ACL for 2013-2014. Therefore, commercial sector ACL/ACT would be 30.19 million lb (13,694 mt) for 2013 and 28.07 million lb (12,734 mt) for 2014. The recreational sector ACLs/ACTs would be 8.52 million lb (3,863 mt), and 7.92 million lb (3,592 mt) for 2013 and 2014, respectively.
The Council recommended up to 3 percent of the landings for RSA. After RSA is removed, the commercial quotas would be 23.53 million lb (10,671 mt) for 2013 and 21.95 million lb (9,955 mt) for 2014. The recreational harvest limits would be 7.55 million lb (3,425 mt) for 2013 and 7.03 million lb (3,188 mt) for 2014.
The scup commercial quota is divided into three commercial fishery quota periods. There are no previous commercial overages applicable to the 2013 scup commercial quota. The period quotas, after deducting for RSA, are detailed in tables 6 and 7. Unused Winter I quota may be carried over for use in the Winter II period. The Council recommended all other management measures remain status quo.
The updated stock assessment indicates that black sea bass were not overfished and overfishing did not occur in 2011. Black sea bass remains a data-poor stock, with relatively high uncertainty for the purposes of calculating ABC. The SSC rejected the OFL estimate provided from the stock assessment, stating that it was highly uncertain and not sufficiently reliable to use as the basis of management advice. The ABC recommendation is the status quo ABC of 4.50 million lb (2,041 mt). The SSC recommended a 3-year specification period, with a constant harvest strategy that would implement the same ABC for 2013-2015. However, the Council only endorsed the ABC for 2013, and recommended the ACL, ACT, and quotas for 2013 only. The Council was concerned with the SSC's determination that black sea bass was a “Level 4” fishery under the Council's ABC control rule, despite some data improvements that may have led to a “Level 3” determination that could result in higher catch limits. The SSC debated the categorization of black sea bass extensively at its July meeting, but in the end determined that continuing the Level 4 designation was appropriate. The Council decided to recommend specifications for just 2013 in the hope that additional information will be available for the SSC in the coming year.
The Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee met to discuss the SSC's recommendations and to determine if additional reductions in the catch limits were necessary to account for management uncertainty. The Monitoring Committee determined that no additional reductions to account for management uncertainty were necessary because the constant catch strategy adequately addresses uncertainty. Therefore, it was recommended that the ACTs (both commercial and recreational) should be set equal to their respective ACL for 2013.
The Council and Board considered the SSC and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee recommendations at their August meeting. The Council recommends a commercial ACL and ACT of 2.13 million lb (966 mt), a recreational ACL and ACT of 2.37 million lb (1,075 mt), a commercial quota of 1.78 million lb (805 mt), and an RHL of 1.85 million lb (838 mt). The quotas include a reduction of 3 percent, as recommended by the Council, for RSA. While the ABC is the same as last year, the ACL/ACTs and quotas are different from 2012 because the updated discard estimate is higher than the previous year.
Recent data indicate that the 2012 recreational black sea bass ACL has been exceeded, and may be further exceeded, by a significant amount. The regulations require that we deduct the amount of landings that exceeded the RHL from a single subsequent year's ACT. Therefore, the proposed ACT and RHL may be adjusted in the final rule to account for this overage.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
An IRFA was prepared by the Council, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), to examine the impacts of these proposed specifications on small business entities, if adopted. A description of the specifications, why they are being considered, and the legal basis for proposing and implementing specifications for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule. A copy of the detailed RFA analysis is available from NMFS or the Council (see ADDRESSES). The Council's analysis made use of quantitative approaches when possible. Where quantitative data on revenues or other business-related metrics that would provide insight to potential impacts were not available to inform the
Small businesses operating in commercial and recreational (i.e., party and charter vessel operations) fisheries have been defined by the Small Business Administration as firms with gross revenues of up to $4.0 and $6.5 million, respectively.
The Council estimates that the proposed 2013-2014 specifications could affect 2,039 vessels that held a Federal summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass permit in 2011 (the most recent year of complete permit data). However, the more immediate impact of this rule will likely be realized by the approximately 870 vessels that actively participated in these fisheries (i.e., landed these species) in 2011. Estimates of costs associated with this rule are discussed further below.
There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action. In addition, NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
If the Council took no action regarding the 2013 specifications, several indefinite measures would remain in effect until otherwise changed; however, many components of the 2012 specifications expire on December 31, 2012. These include catch limits for all three species. There are no roll-over provisions for the quotas if the 2013 specifications are not made effective, and so, without specified quotas, NMFS would have no mechanism to close fisheries if management limits were exceeded. This would give rise to a situation in which the goals and objectives of the FMP, its implementing regulations, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act would all be violated. Therefore, the no action alternative is not considered to be a reasonable alternative to the preferred action of developing and implementing 2013 specifications, and it was excluded from detailed analysis in the Council's EA/RFA analyses.
The Council analyzed three sets of combined catch limit alternatives for the 2013-2014 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. Of these, one alternative, labeled Alternative 3 for each species, contained the most restrictive options (i.e., lowest total landing levels). While the Alternative 3 measures would achieve the objectives of the proposed action for each of three species, they have the highest potential adverse economic impacts on small entities in the form of potential foregone fishing opportunities. Alternative 3 was not preferred by the Council because the other alternatives considered are expected have lower adverse impacts on small entities while achieving the stated objectives of sustaining the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass stocks, consistent with the FMP and Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Alternative 1 (Council's preferred) would implement the following ABCs in 2013: Summer flounder, 22.34 million lb (10,133 mt); scup, 38.71 million lb (17,577 mt); and black sea bass, 4.5 million lb (2,041 mt). Alternative 1 would also implement the following ABCs for 2014: Summer flounder, 22.40 million lb (10,088 mt), and scup, 35.99 million lb (16,325 mt). Alternative 2 (status quo) would implement the following ABCs in 2013 and 2014: Summer flounder, 25.58 million lb (11,603 mt); scup, 40.88 million lb (18,543 mt); and black sea bass (2013 only), 4.5 million lb (2,041 mt).
As a result of the proposed decrease in commercial and recreational landings from 2012 levels, it is expected that small negative economic impacts on the summer flounder fisheries in 2013 and 2014 may occur. Each state's summer flounder allocation commercial limits will decrease under these adjusted commercial quotas. The proposed scup commercial quota and recreational harvest limits under the proposed alternative are lower than the quotas implemented in 2012; however, they are substantially higher than the 2011 commercial and recreational landings. In 2011, the commercial quota and recreational harvest limit each increased by 91 percent when compared to the limits implemented in 2010. The high 2011 commercial quota and recreational harvest limit values did not constrain the fishery in 2011 as had occurred in previous years when the commercial quota and recreational harvest limits were considerably lower. In fact, the scup fishery did not harvest its full 2011 allocation. Unless market conditions change substantially in 2013, it would be expected that commercial and recreational landings will likely be close to the 2011 landings. There is no indication that the market environment for commercially and recreationally caught scup will change considerably in years 2013 or 2014. Therefore, there are no expected negative impacts from the proposed scup quotas, even though they are lower than the previous year. As a result of the potential increase in landings under the black sea bass commercial quota and recreational harvest limits under preferred alternative 1, it is expected that a small positive economic impacts are likely to occur when compared to 2012.
While the specifications proposed would establish a 2013 and 2014 recreational harvest limit for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass, the management measure details for recreational fisheries will be developed by the Council in December 2012, followed by NMFS rulemaking in the first quarter of 2013. A comprehensive analysis of the impacts associated with the recommended recreational management measures will be provided to NMFS from the Council to support these activities. If recreational landings for these three species are the same in 2012 as in 2011 (5.96 million lb for summer flounder, 3.66 million lb for scup, and 1.27 million for black sea bass), the recreational harvest limits proposed for 2013 (7.62 million lb for summer flounder, 7.56 million for scup, and 1.84 million for black sea bass) and 2014 (6.12 million lb for summer flounder and 3.01 million for scup) are not expected to constrain recreational landings in 2013, but may constrain summer flounder recreational landings in 2014. As such, it is unlikely that more restrictive limits (i.e., lower possession limits, higher minimum size limits, and/or shorter open seasons) will be required in 2013 when compared to 2012, but more restrictive recreational harvest measures may be necessary in 2014 for summer flounder. Specific recreational management measures (for all three species) will be determined in December when more complete data regarding 2012 recreational landings are available.
The Council selected Alternative 1 (preferred) over Alternative 2 (status quo) and Alternative 3 (most restrictive) stating that, while each alternative would provide adequate stock protection, the Alternative 1 measures were expected to result in the least amount of long-term negative economic impact to the summer flounder, scup,
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Cold Storage Survey. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, expected increases in response rates, and modes of data collection. The questionnaires have had some minor modifications to accommodate changes in the products stored by the industry, and to make the questionnaires easier to complete. The target population for cold storage operators (both mandatory and voluntary samples) will be contacted for this data on a monthly basis. Fruit storage operations are contacted on a monthly basis. The capacity survey is conduced once every other year of all operations with refrigerated storage capacity. Most of these surveys are voluntary; the one exception is for operations that store certain manufactured dairy products that are required by Public Law No. 106-532 and 107-171 to respond.
Comments on this notice must be received by January 15, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0001, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333.
The monthly Cold Storage Survey provides information on national supplies of food commodities in refrigerated storage facilities. A biennial survey of refrigerated warehouse capacity is also conducted to provide a benchmark of the capacity available for refrigerated storage of the nation's food supply. Information on stocks of food commodities that are in refrigerated facilitates have a major impact on the price, marketing, processing, and distribution of agricultural products.
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
Most of these surveys are voluntary; the one exception is for operations that store certain manufactured dairy products that are required by Public Law 106-532 and 107-171 to respond.
Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388.
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Vegetable Surveys Program. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length. Some of the vegetable production surveys will incorporate sampling of the total population of producers, while the processing surveys will involve a total enumeration of the entire population. Changes are being made to some of the questionnaires to accommodate changes in the industry and to make the questionnaires easier for the respondent to complete. This should help to reduce respondent burden and improve the overall response rates.
Comments on this notice must be received by January 15, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0037, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333.
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Agricultural Prices Surveys. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by January 15, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0003, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333.
The Agricultural Prices surveys provide data on the prices received by farmers and prices paid by them for production goods and services. NASS estimates based on these surveys are used by agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prepare the economic accounts of the United States. These price estimates are also used to compute Parity Prices in accordance with requirements of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended (Title III, Subtitle A, Section 301(a)). In addition, price data are used by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to help determine payment rates, program option levels, and disaster programs.
These data will be collected under authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388.
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and will be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
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).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has issued regulations under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFCIA; 16 U.S.C. 6901
The application for WCPFC Area Endorsements calls for specified information about the vessel and its operator that is not already collected via the application for high seas fishing permits issued under 50 CFR 300.13. The Foreign EEZ Form calls for specified information about the vessel, its owners and operators and any fishing authorizations issued by other nations.
This information collected under the two requirements is used by NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Commission to monitor the size and composition of the HMS fleets in the Convention Area for compliance-related and scientific purposes.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Minority Business Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Advisory Council for Minority Business Enterprise (NACMBE) will hold its seventh meeting to discuss final recommendations in support of accelerating the growth of minority-owned businesses. The members of the Council will come to a consensus regarding the final recommendations to fulfill NACMBE's charter mandate in preparation for submission to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The agenda may change to accommodate Council business.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, December 6, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).
This meeting will be held at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road Northwest, Washington, DC 20008.
Demetria Gallagher, National Director's Office, Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-1624
A limited amount of time, in the afternoon, will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning affairs of the NACMBE at
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for
Copies of the NACMBE open meeting minutes will be available to the public upon request.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Habitat Oversight Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Fairfield Inn & Suites, 185 MacArthur Drive, New Bedford, MA 02740; telephone: (774) 634-2000; fax: (774) 634-2001.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will continue to develop options and alternatives for Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (OA2). Specifically, the Committee will review Habitat Advisory Panel and Plan Development Team recommendations about Dedicated Habitat Research Areas and gear modification measures, and select options for inclusion in the OA2 document. In addition, the PDT will provide advice on combining management options into alternatives to meet overall adverse effects minimization requirements. Other area-management options and combined alternatives may also be discussed.
As a reminder, the Habitat Committee's work will feed into a joint process between the Habitat and Groundfish Committees. This joint process will draft combined alternatives that merge habitat options with yet-to-be-developed groundfish productivity-related options. This range of alternatives will be presented to the Council early next year for their approval for analysis in the OA2 Environmental Impact Statement/Magnuson-Stevens Act document.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management staff will provide a brief status update on the Massachusetts and Rhode Island Wind Energy Areas (WEA) where leasing is under consideration, and will solicit feedback on a recently completed Environmental Assessment for the MA WEA.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Monkfish Oversight Committee and Advisory Panel in December, 2012 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 10 a.m.
This meeting will be held at the Providence Biltmore, 11 Dorrance Street, Providence, RI 02903; telephone: (401) 421-0700; fax: (401) 455-3050.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee and Advisory Panel will continue development of Amendment 6 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan, including modifications to the current system, incorporation of monkfish into groundfish sectors, and/or individually transferable quotas (ITQs). This meeting is a continuation of the discussions at the August 8th joint meeting. The Committee will provide further direction to the Plan Development Team in the development of a range of alternatives to be incorporated into a draft amendment document for consideration by the Councils.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
In addition to a Council Member Visioning Workshop, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a joint meeting of its Habitat and Environmental Protection Committee and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; meetings of its Dolphin Wahoo Committee; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) Committee; Snapper Grouper Committee; Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee; Personnel Committee (CLOSED SESSION); Executive Finance Committee; and a meeting of the Full Council. The Council will take action as necessary. The Council will also hold an informal public question and answer session regarding agenda items, and a formal public comment session. See
The Council meeting will be held December 3-7, 2012. See
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Wilmington Riverside Hotel, 301 North Water Street, Wilmington, NC 28401; telephone: (1-888) 324-8170 or (910) 763-5900; fax: (910) 763-0038.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free at (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
1. Council Member Visioning Workshop: December 3, 2012, 9 a.m. until 12 noon.
Council members will receive a presentation on the visioning process used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, discuss the visioning process and provide direction to staff.
2. Joint Meeting of the Habitat and Environmental Protection Committee and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee: December 3, 2012, 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m.
The Habitat and Environmental Protection Committee and the Ecosystem-Based Management Committee will meet jointly and will receive a report from the joint meeting of the respective advisory panels as well as a report from the Habitat and Environmental Protection Advisory Panel (AP). The joint committee will receive: an overview on Coral Amendment 7, pertaining to Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) and transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC; and an update on ecosystem activities. The joint committee will modify Coral Amendment 7 as appropriate and will either recommend an adjustment to the timing of the amendment or recommend the amendment for public hearing.
3. Dolphin Wahoo Committee Meeting: December 3, 2012, 3 p.m. until 4 p.m.
The Dolphin Wahoo Committee will review Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 5, pertaining to bag limit sales of fish and changes to the Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) and the Annual Catch Limit (ACL). The Committee is scheduled to recommend approval of the amendment for the scoping process.
4. SEDAR Committee Meeting: December 3, 2012, 4 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. (
The SEDAR Committee will receive an activities update as well as a report from the Steering Committee. The Committee will discuss SEDAR schedules, terms of reference (TORs) and SEDAR appointments (closed session).
5. Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting: December 4, 2012, 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. and December 5, 2012, 8:30 a.m. until 12 noon.
The Snapper Grouper Committee will receive: an update on the status of catches versus quotas for commercial and recreational species under ACLs; an update on the status of amendments under formal review; a report from the Snapper Grouper AP meeting; and a report from the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). The Committee will consider an Emergency Action to increase the commercial ACL for vermilion snapper and will receive overviews of the following amendments: Regulatory Amendment 13, regarding adjustments of snapper grouper ACLs based on Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey (MRFSS)/Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) calibration; Regulatory Amendment 15, pertaining to management measures for yellowtail snapper and modifying the Accountability Measure (AM) for gag that currently prohibits the harvest of shallow water grouper species when the gag ACL is met; and Snapper Grouper Amendment 28, addressing framework actions to reopen the red snapper fishery. The Committee will modify these amendments as necessary and is scheduled to recommend approval of these amendments for formal review. The Committee will also receive an overview of Snapper Grouper Amendment 27, which addresses management measures for blue runner and would transfer management responsibility of yellowtail snapper, mutton snapper and Nassau grouper from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to the South Atlantic Council. The Committee will modify the amendment as necessary and is scheduled to recommend approval of Amendment 27 for public hearing. The Committee will: discuss the use of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and HAPCs for speckled hind and warsaw grouper; receive a presentation on the reorientation of existing MPAs based on occurrence and habitat; and develop guidance on alternatives to be included in Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 17, which involves the use of MPAs for speckled hind and warsaw grouper.
6. Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee Meeting: December 5, 2012, 1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m.
The Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee will receive presentations on: post-stratification methodology used to arrive at recreational landings estimates; and the results of the demonstration of the quota monitoring system. The Committee will receive a status update on the Joint Gulf and South Atlantic Council Generic Dealer Permit and an overview of Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3 (CE-BA 3). The Committee will receive guidance on actions and alternatives in CE-BA 3 and is scheduled to recommend approval of the amendment for formal review.
There will be an informal public question and answer session with the NMFS Regional Administrator and the Council Chairman on December 5, 2012, beginning at 5:30 p.m.
7. Personnel Committee Meeting: December 6, 2012, 8:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. (closed session)
The Personnel Committee will discuss the Executive Director's performance review.
8. Executive Finance Committee Meeting: December 6, 2012, 9:30 a.m. until 11 a.m.
The Executive Finance Committee will discuss: the status of calendar year (CY) 2012 budget expenditures; the draft 2013 activities schedules; and the draft 2013 budget. The Committee will also: Discuss joint South Florida management issues and schedule 2013 meetings; develop a position on SSC review responsibilities; address Council follow-up and priorities; and discuss other issues as appropriate.
From 11 a.m. until 11:15 a.m., the Council will call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, and approve the September 2012 meeting minutes.
A formal public comment session will be held on December 6, 2012, beginning at 11:15 a.m., on: Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 13; Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 15; Snapper Grouper Amendment 28; an Emergency Action to increase the commercial ACL for vermilion snapper; and Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3 (CE-BA 3); followed by comment on any other item on the agenda.
From 2:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee and approve the following amendments for formal Secretarial review: Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 13; Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 15; and Snapper Grouper Amendment 28. The Council will approve Snapper Grouper Amendment 27 for public hearing and approve an Emergency Action to increase the commercial ACL for vermilion snapper. The Council will consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 4:30 p.m. until 4:45 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee, approve CE-BA 3 for formal Secretarial review, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 4:45 p.m. until 5 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Joint Habitat and Environmental Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committees, approve Coral Amendment 7 for public hearing, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 5 p.m. until 5:30 p.m., the Council will receive a briefing on Amendment 5 to the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan from HMS staff. The Council will take action as appropriate.
From 8:30 a.m. until 8:45 a.m., the Council will receive a legal briefing on litigation. (closed session)
From 8:45 a.m. until 9 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the SEDAR Committee, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 9 a.m. until 9:15 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Dolphin Wahoo Committee, approve Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 5 items for scoping, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 9:15 a.m. until 9:30 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Executive Finance Committee, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 9:30 a.m. until 12 noon, the Council will receive presentations and status reports from the NOAA Southeast Regional Office (SERO) and the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), receive an outreach update on the Marine Resource Education Program, review agency and liaison reports, and discuss other business, including upcoming meetings.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal final Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Except for advertised (scheduled) public hearings and public comment, the times and sequence specified on this agenda is subject to change.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete services from the Procurement List that were provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 USC 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 9/14/2012 (77 FR 56813-56814) and 9/21/2012 (77 FR 58528-58529), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 USC 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 USC 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:
San Angelo, TX.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 12-40 with attached transmittal, and policy justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has requested a possible sale of 48 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles, 9 THAAD launchers; test components, repair and return, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.135 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
This proposed sale will help strengthen the UAE's capability to counter current and future threats in the region and reduce dependence on U.S. forces.
The proposed sale of these missiles and equipment will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Lockheed Martin Space Systems Corporation in Sunnyvale, CA and Raytheon Corporation in Andover, MA. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the UAE.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) is the first weapons system with both endo and exo atmospheric capability developed specifically to defend against ballistic missiles. The higher altitude and theater wide protection offered by THAAD provides more protection of larger areas than lower-tier systems alone. THAAD is designed to defend against short, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles. The THAAD system consists of four major components: Fire Control/Communications, Radar, Launchers and Interceptors.
2. THAAD contains classified Confidential/Secret components and critical/sensitive technology. This critical/sensitive technology is primarily in the area of design and production know-how and primarily inherent in the design, development and/or manufacturing data related to certain critical components. Information on operational effectiveness with respect to countermeasures, low observable technologies, select software documentation and test data are classified up to and including Secret.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of specific hardware, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapons system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 12-49 with attached transmittal, and policy justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Qatar has requested a possible sale of 2 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Fire Units, 12 THAAD Launchers, 150 THAAD Interceptors, 2 THAAD Fire Control and Communications, 2 AN/TPY-2 THAAD Radars, and 1 Early Warning Radar (EWR). Also included are fire unit maintenance equipment, prime movers (trucks), generators, electrical power units, trailers, communications equipment, tools, test and maintenance equipment, repair and return, system integration and checkout, spare/repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics personnel support services, and other related support elements. The estimated cost is $6.5 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
This proposed sale will help strengthen U.S. efforts to promote regional stability by enhancing regional defense capabilities of a key U.S. partner. The proposed sale will help strengthen Qatar's capability to counter current and future threats in the region and reduce dependence on U.S. forces. Qatar will have no difficulty absorbing this weapon system into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors are Lockheed Martin Space Systems Corporation in Sunnyvale, California, and the sub-contractor is Raytheon Corporation in Andover, Massachusetts.
There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale at this time.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require periodic travel of up to 13 U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Qatar for an undetermined period for delivery, system checkout, and training as determined by the schedule. There is no known adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) Ballistic Missile Defense System contains classified Confidential/Secret components and critical/sensitive technology. The THAAD Fire Unit is a ground-based, forward deployable terminal missile defense system that represents significant technological advances. The THAAD System continues to hold a technology lead over other terminal ballistic missile systems. THAAD is the first weapon system with both endo- and exo-atmospheric capability developed specifically to defend against ballistic missiles. The higher altitude and theater-wide protection offered by THAAD provides more protection of larger areas than lower-tier systems alone. THAAD is designed to defend against short, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles. The THAAD system consists of four major components: Fire Control/Communications, Radar, Launchers, and Interceptors.
2. The THAAD Ballistic Missile Defense System contains sensitive/critical Technology, primarily in the area of design and production know-how and primarily inherent in the design, development and/or manufacturing data related to certain critical components. Information on operational effectiveness with respect to countermeasures and counter-counter measures, low observable technologies, select software documentation and test data are classified up to and including Secret.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of specific hardware, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapons system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 12-58 with attached transmittal, policy justification and sensitivity of technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
(iv) Military Department: Army (UAP)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Qatar has requested a possible sale of 11 PATRIOT Configuration-3 Modernized Fire Units, 11 AN/MPQ-65 Radar Sets, 11 AN/MSQ-132 Engagement Control Systems, 30 Antenna Mast Groups, 44 M902 Launching Stations, 246 PATRIOT MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missile-TBM (GEM-T) with canisters, 2 PATRIOT MIM-104E GEM-T Test Missiles, 768 PATRIOT Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Missiles with canisters, 10 PAC-3 Test Missiles with canisters, 11 Electrical Power Plants (EPPII), 8 Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems/Low Volume Terminals (MIDS/LVTs), communications equipment, tools and test equipment, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, spare and repair parts, facility design, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $9.9 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of an important ally which has been, and continues to be, a force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. This sale is consistent with U.S. initiatives to provide key allies in the region with modern systems that will enhance interoperability with U.S. forces and increase security.
Qatar will use the Patriot Missile System to improve its missile defense capability, strengthen its homeland defense, and deter regional threats. The proposed sale will enhance Qatar's interoperability with the U.S. and its allies, making it a more valuable partner in an increasingly important area of the world. Qatar should have no difficulty absorbing this system into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of these missiles and equipment will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractors will be Raytheon Corporation in Andover, Maryland, and Lockheed-Martin in Dallas, Texas. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require approximately 30 U.S. Government and 40 contractor representatives to travel to Qatar for an extended period for equipment de-processing/fielding, system checkout, training and technical and logistics support.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vi)
1. The PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3/Configuration-3 Ground Support Equipment (PAC-3/C-3) Air Defense System contains classified Confidential hardware components, Secret tactical software, and critical/sensitive technology. The PAC-3 Missile Four-Pack and Guidance Enhanced Missile (GEM-T) hardware is classified Confidential and the associated launcher hardware is Unclassified. The items requested represent significant technological advances for Qatar. The PAC-3/C-3Air Defense System continues to hold a significant technology lead over other surface-to-air missile systems in the world.
2. The PAC-3/C-3 sensitive/critical technology is primarily in the area of design and production know-how and primarily inherent in the design, development and/or manufacturing data related to the following components:
3. Information on vulnerability to electronic countermeasures and counter-counter measures, system performance capabilities and effectiveness, survivability and vulnerability data, PAC-3 Missile seeker capabilities, non-cooperative target recognition, low observable technologies, select software/software documentation and test data are classified up to and including Secret.
4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapons systems effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense.
Notice of meeting.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces (subsequently referred to as the Task Force) will take place.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012-Wednesday, December 5, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT each day.
DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Washington DC-Crystal City, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202 (in the Commonwealth Room).
Mail Delivery service through Recovering Warrior Task Force, Hoffman Building II, 200 Stovall St, Alexandria, VA 22332-0021 “Mark as Time Sensitive for December Meeting”. Emails can be sent to
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces about its mission and functions. If individuals are interested in making an oral statement during the Public Forum time period, a written statement for a presentation of two minutes must be submitted as below and must identify it is being submitted for an oral presentation by the person making the submission. Identification information must be provided and at a minimum must include a name and a phone number. Individuals may visit the Task Force Web site at
Written statements in which the author does not wish to present orally may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Task Force through the contact information in
Statements, either oral or written, being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed in
The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Task Force Co-Chairs and ensure they are provided to all members of the Task Force before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.
Reasonable accommodations will be made for those individuals with disabilities who request them. Requests for additional services should be directed to Heather Jane Moore, (703) 325-6640, by 5:00 p.m. EDT, Tuesday, November 27, 2012.
National Defense University, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Defense University (NDU), Designated Federal Officer, has scheduled a meeting of the Board of Visitors. The National Defense University Board of Visitors is a Federal Advisory Board. The Board meets twice each year in proceedings that are open to the public.
The meeting will be held on December 10-11, 2012, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on December 10 and continuing on December 11 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The Board of Visitors meeting will be held at Lincoln Hall, Building 64, Room 1105, the National Defense University, 300 5th Avenue SW., Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20319-5066.
The point of contact for this notice of open meeting is Ms. Joycelyn Stevens at (202) 685-0079, Fax (202) 685-3920 or
The future agenda will include discussion on
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Notice of meeting.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing will take place.
Thursday, December 6, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Friday, December 7, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Omni Hotel, 100 South 12th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
Dr. Jane Arabian, (703) 697-9271.
Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Room 3D1066, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271. Persons desiring to make oral presentations or submit written statements for consideration at the Committee meeting must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number above no later than November 28, 2012.
Defense Information Systems Agency, DoD.
Notice to add a new system of records.
The Defense Information Systems Agency proposes to add a new system of records in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective on December 17, 2012 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before December 17, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Jeanette Weathers-Jenkins, 6916 Cooper Avenue, Fort Meade, MD 20755-7901, or (301) 225-8158.
The Defense Information Systems Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
DoD Enterprise Portal Service (DEPS).
Defense Enterprise Computing Centers (DECC), 5450 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0975.
Defense Enterprise Computing Centers (DECC), 8705 Industrial Blvd., Bldg 3900, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma 73145-3009.
Department of Defense civilian employees, military personnel, and contractors.
Full name, DoD ID Number, birth date, email address, organizational address, telephone, and fax number, military rank/grade, military branch, and current DoD identification badge for registration and access management.
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; Pub. L. 106-229, Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce; OASD (C3I) Policy Memorandum, subject: Department of Defense (DoD) Public Key Infrastructure (PKI); and OASD (C3I) Memorandum, subject: Common Access Card (CAC).
DEPS will utilize Microsoft Office SharePoint Server as an integrated suite of server capabilities that will improve organizational effectiveness by providing comprehensive content management and enterprise search, accelerating shared business processes, and facilitating information-sharing across boundaries for better business insight. Additionally, this collaboration and content management server provides information technology (IT) professionals and developers with the platform and tools they need for server administration, application extensibility, and interoperability.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974 as amended, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the DISA's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system.
Electronic storage media.
Retrieved by full name.
Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, password protection, and encryption and is accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to records is limited to person(s) responsible for servicing the record in performance of their official duties and who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. Access to computerized data is restricted by Common Access Card (CAC) and/or password which are changed periodically. Additionally, users receive training and awareness notices on the proper marking of sensitive information. Host Based Security System (HBSS) is operational and provides mechanisms to protect, detect, track, and report malicious computer-related activities in near real-time.
Disposition pending (until the National Archives and Records Administration approves retention and disposal schedule, records will be treated as permanent).
DEPS Program Manager, Enterprise Services Division, Defense Information Systems Agency, Acquisition Building, 6914 Cooper Ave, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-7088.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Enterprise Service Directorate (ESD), 6914 Cooper Ave, Fort Meade, MD 20755-7088.
Written requests should contain the full name of the requesting individual, current DoD identification badge or a copy of driver's license as proof of identity. The requester may also visit the system manager listed above.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Enterprise Service Directorate (ESD), 6914 Cooper Ave, Fort Meade, MD 20755-7088.
Written requests should contain the full name of the requesting individual, current DoD identification badge or a copy of driver's license as proof of identity. The requester may also visit the system manager listed above.
DISA's rules for accessing records, for contesting content and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DISA Instruction 210-225-2; 32 CFR part 316; or may be obtained from the systems manager at the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Enterprise Service Directorate (ESD), 6914 Cooper Ave, Fort Meade, MD 20755-7088.
Data obtained and manually entered by system administrators.
None.
DoD.
Notice to reestablish Federal Advisory Committee.
Under the provisions of 5 CFR 532, Federal Wage System (Pub. L. 92-392), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.50(c), the Department of Defense (DoD) gives notice that it is reestablishing the charter for the Department of Defense Wage Committee (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”).
The Committee is a discretionary federal advisory committee that shall provide the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), independent advice and recommendations on all matters relating to the conduct of wage surveys and the establishment of wage schedules for all appropriated fund and non-appropriated fund wage areas of blue-collar employees within the DoD.
The Committee shall report to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the USD(P&R). The USD(P&R) may act upon the Committee's advice and recommendations.
The Committee, consistent with 5 CFR 532.227, shall be comprised of seven members—a chairperson and six additional members. Committee members shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense and their appointments will be renewed on an annual basis. Those members, who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees, shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. § 3109 and serve as special government employees. Each Committee member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. With the exception of travel and per diem for official Committee related travel, Committee members shall serve without compensation, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense.
The Secretary of Defense may approve the appointment of Committee members for one-to-two year terms of service,
The Department, when necessary, and consistent with the Committee's mission and DoD policies/procedures, may establish subcommittees to support the Committee. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, or the Committee's sponsor.
These Subcommittees shall not work independently of the chartered Committee, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Committee for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Committee; nor can any subcommittee or its members update or report directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees.
All subcommittee members shall be appointed in the same manner as the Committee members; that is, the Secretary of Defense shall appoint subcommittee members even if the member in question is already a Committee member. Subcommittee members, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, may serve a term of service on the Subcommittee of one to four years; however, no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the Subcommittee, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense.
Subcommittee members, if not full-time or part-time government employees, shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. § 3109, and shall serve as special government employees, whose appointments must be renewed by the Secretary of Defense on an annual basis. With the exception of travel and per diem for official Committee-related travel, Subcommittee members shall serve without compensation.
All subcommittees operate under the provisions of FACA, the Government in the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and governing DoD policies/procedures.
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The Committee shall meet at the call of the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with Committee's Chairperson. The estimated number of Committee meetings is twenty-six per year.
In addition, the Designated Federal Officer is required to be in attendance at all Committee and subcommittee meetings for the entire duration of each and every meeting; however, in the absence of the Designated Federal Officer, a properly approved Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend the entire duration of the Committee or subcommittee meeting.
The Designated Federal Officer, or the Alternate Designated Federal Officer, shall call all of the Committee's and Subcommittee's meetings; prepare and approve all meeting agendas; adjourn any meeting when the Designated Federal Officer, or the Alternate Designated Federal Officer, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies/procedures; and chair meetings when directed to do so by the official to whom the Committee reports.
Pursuant to 41 CFR §§ 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to Department of Defense Wage Committee membership about the Committee's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of Department of Defense Wage Committee.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Department of Defense Wage Committee, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Department of Defense Wage Committee's Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR § 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Department of Defense Wage Committee. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of Intent.
The Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) intends to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Feasibility Report (FR) for the ecosystem restoration of the Can
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Planning Division, Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019.
Wilberto Cubero by email at
These DEIS and FR will be prepared under the provisions of the Memorandum for Commander, South Atlantic Division (CESAD-PM) Implementation Guidance for Section 5127 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007)—Can
All the alternatives may restore open water resources and improve the wetland and benthic habitat functional value. The Corps will consider other project measures such as in-bay sediment disposal and the relocation of infrastructure.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of Intent.
The Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Orange County Water District (OCWD), the non-Federal sponsor for the project, intend to jointly prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) to study, plan, and implement a multifaceted project to restore
Christopher T. Jones, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Ecosystem Planning Section, CESPL-PD-RN, P.O. Box 532711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325.
Christopher T. Jones, Biologist,
The Prado Basin, California study was authorized by a study resolution dated May 8, 1964, the Committee on Public Works, U.S. House of Representatives (House Document No. 135, 81st Congress, 1st Session). It was additionally authorized by Section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) previously conducted a Reconnaissance Phase Study of the Santa Ana River Basin and Orange County Streams, California. Ecosystem restoration and water conservation problems were identified as having a Federal interest. The study did not identify sediment management as a Federal interest to address at that time. However, sediment management has been determined to contribute to ecosystem restoration goals and is a planning objective of the study.
1. Project Description. The proposed feasibility study will investigate alternatives to restore environmental resources, conserve water and resolve issues related to alterations to the natural sediment transport regime in the Santa Ana River.
Preliminary objectives for this study were based on identification and consideration of problems, needs and opportunities in the areas associated with ecosystem restoration and watershed development. The establishment of these objectives focused primarily on the authorized study purpose of determining the Federal interest in ecosystem restoration in Prado Basin. However, related problems and needs in the study area were also given consideration.
The first objective is to restore environmental resources in the study area, which would contribute to the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Federal objective. The efficiency of the restoration would be measured in the increases in the net quantity and/or quality of desired ecosystem resources.
A second objective is to provide a more efficient means of meeting the study area's water demands. The efficiency of meeting these water demands is measured in the cost of providing the needed water supplies. A reduced cost in providing water supply as compared to the without project condition would result in savings to the nation's economic development (NED).
A third objective is to improve sediment management and sediment transport in the study area. Improvements to sediment management and transport could result in habitat, water supply and flood risk reduction benefits.
2. Alternatives. Several potential measures have been discussed that may meet the objectives of this study. Measures will be grouped into discrete alternatives and analyzed in the EIS/EIR. These potential measures include, but are not limited to, wetland and riparian habitat creation, restoration of stream banks through bio-engineering, creation of perennial stream habitat for the Santa Ana sucker, removal of non-native vegetation, eradication of non-native fish species, enhancement of habitats and structures to facilitate wildlife movement, dredging sediment, sluicing sediment past Prado Dam, fish passage structures, passage of sediment through the dam's spillway via various means, re-operate dam for water conservation year-round at 505 feet in elevation, and to re-operate the dam for water conservation at a level higher than 498 feet elevation, but lower than 505 feet in elevation. This initial list of potential measures may be enhanced by input received at public meetings.
3. Scoping. a. The Corps intends to hold a public scoping meeting(s) for the EIS/EIR to aid in the determination of significant environmental issues associated with the proposed project. Affected federal, state and local resource agencies, Native American groups and concerned interest groups/individuals are encouraged to participate in the scoping process. Public participation is critical in defining the scope of analysis in the Draft EIS/EIR, identifying significant environmental issues in the Draft EIS/EIR, providing useful information such as published and unpublished data, and knowledge of relevant issues and recommending mitigation measures to offset potential impacts from proposed actions. The time and location of the public scoping meeting will be advertised in letters, public announcements and news releases.
b. Potential impacts associated with the proposed project will be fully evaluated. Resource categories that will be analyzed include: physical environment, geology, biological resources, air quality, water quality, recreational usage, aesthetics, cultural resources, transportation, noise, hazardous waste, socioeconomics and safety.
c. Individuals and agencies may offer information or data relevant to the environmental or socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project by submitting comments, suggestions, and requests to be placed on the mailing list for announcements by sending correspondence to the address listed above, or to the following email address:
d. The project will require certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Depending upon the recommended alternative, the project may also require additional real property rights for construction and operation of a facility, compliance with Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, and relevant Department of California Fish and Game Code.
4. Public Scoping Meeting: A public scoping meeting will be held at the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Events Center on Wednesday, November 28, 2012, from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The project will be presented twice during this open house style meeting. The address for the IEUA Events Center is: Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 6075 Kimball Avenue, Chino, CA 91708,Phone: (909) 993-1600.
5. The Draft EIS/EIR is scheduled to be published and circulated for public review in May 2014.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice to amend a System of Records.
The Department of the Navy is amending a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective on December 17, 2012 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before December 17, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Robin Patterson, at (202) 685-6545.
The Department of the Navy systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Department of the Navy (DON) Military Awards System (May 5, 2010, 75 FR 24667).
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should contact their local Personnel Support Activity or Personnel Support Detachment for a search of their Navy military personnel record or go to the Navy awards Web site at
Marine Corps personnel seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should contact their unit administrative officer (G-1/S-1) for a search of their Service Record Book/Officer Qualification Record or write to Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department, Personnel Management Division, Military Awards Branch (MMMA), 3280 Russell Road, MCB Quantico, Virginia 22134-5103.
All other individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should contact either the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Awards Branch (DNS-35), 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000 (for U.S. Navy awards) or Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department, Personnel Management Division, Military Awards Branch (MMMA), MCB Quantico, Virginia 22134-5103 (for U.S. Marine Corps awards).
Written requests should include full name, SSN, time period of award, and must be signed. The system manager may require an original signature or a notarized signature as a means of proving the identity of the individual requesting access to the records.”
Delete entry and replace with “Navy Department Awards Web Service; OPNAV Form 1650/3, Personal Award Recommendation Form, OPNAV 1650/14, Unit Award Recommendation Form, general orders; military personnel file, medical file, deck logs, command histories, award letter 1650.
Marine Corps Awards histories, Marine Corps Awards Processing System, Personal Award Recommendation (OPNAV 1650/3), Marine Corps orders, official military records, command histories, historical paper copies of personal award citations, and microfilm copies of Navy and Marine Corps 3 x 5 award cards.”
Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
Notice; correction.
On October 12, 2012, the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education (Department) published in the
Effective November 16, 2012.
On page 62230 of the RTT-SIG SORN, in the second column, under the heading the ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINTED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES, in the last sentence of the introductory paragraph, we correct the phrase “individually identifying information” to read “personally identifiable information”.
Dr. Audrey Pendleton, Associate Commissioner, Evaluation Division, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Room 502D, Washington, DC 20208-0001. Telephone: (202) 208-7078.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy.
Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive license to practice the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent No 7,553,517, issued June 30, 2009, entitled “Method of applying a cerium diffusion coating to a metallic alloy,” to Corrosion Solutions having its principal place of business in Eugene, Oregon. The inventions are owned by the United States of America as represented by the Department of Energy (DOE). The prospective exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Written comments or nonexclusive license applications are to be received at the address listed below no later than December 3, 2012. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective exclusive license may be submitted to the Office of Chief Counsel, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, or via facsimile at (412) 386-5949.
Jessica Sosenko, Technology Transfer Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236; Telephone (412) 386-7417; Email:
Section 209(c) gives DOE with authority to grant exclusive or partially exclusive licenses in department-owned inventions, where a determination can be made, among other things, that the desired practical application of the invention has not been achieved, or is not likely expeditiously to be achieved, under a nonexclusive license. The statute and implementing regulations (37 CFR 404) require that the necessary determinations be made after public notice and opportunity for filing written objections.
Corrosion Solutions, a new small business, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions and has a plan for commercialization of the invention. DOE intends to grant the license, upon a final determination in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c), unless, within 15 days of publication of this notice, NETL's Office of Chief Counsel (contact information listed above) receives in writing any of the following, together with the supporting documents:
(i) A statement from any person setting forth reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the United States to grant the proposed license; or
(ii) An application for a nonexclusive license to the invention, in which the applicant states that it already has brought the invention to practical application or is likely to bring the invention to practical application expeditiously.
The proposed license would be exclusive, subject to a license and other rights retained by the U.S. Government, and subject to a negotiated royalty. DOE will review all timely written responses to this notice and will grant the license if, after expiration of the 15-day notice period and after consideration of any written responses to this notice, a determination is made in accordance with Section 209(c) that the license is in the public interest.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Decision and Order.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of the decision and order (Case No. CAC-039) that grants Fujitsu General Limited (Fujitsu) a waiver from the DOE commercial package air-source central air conditioners and heat pumps test procedures for determining the energy consumption set forth in its petition for waiver. Under today's decision and order, Fujitsu shall be required to test and rate its AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pump with a capacity of 264,000 Btu/h, and specified compatible indoor units using American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air-conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1230, as adopted in DOE's final rule dated May 16, 2012.
This Decision and Order is effective November 16, 2012 through May 12, 2013.
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-71, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email:
DOE issues notice of this Decision and Order in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 431.401(f)(4). In this Decision and Order, DOE grants Fujitsu a waiver for the Airstage V-II multi-split equipment specified in its waiver submitted on December 16, 2011. Fujitsu must test and rate this equipment using ANSI/AHRI 1230, as adopted in DOE's final rule dated May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28928), as the alternative test procedure. DOE's
Today's decision requires Fujitsu to make representations concerning the energy efficiency of this equipment consistent with the provisions and restrictions of the alternate test procedure in the Decision and Order below, and the representations must fairly disclose the test results. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) The same standard applies to distributors, retailers, and private labelers when making representations of the energy efficiency of this equipment.
Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), established the Energy Conservation Program for certain industrial equipment, which includes commercial air conditioning equipment, the focus of this decision and order.
For commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, EPCA provides that “the test procedures shall be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute [ARI] or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE], as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 30, 1992.” (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If the industry test procedure for commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment is amended, EPCA directs the Secretary to amend the corresponding DOE test procedure unless the Secretary determines, by rule and based on clear and convincing evidence, that such a modified test procedure does not meet the statutory criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule adopting test procedures for commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, effective January 8, 2007. 71 FR 71340. Table 1 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 431.96 directs manufacturers of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment to use the appropriate procedure when measuring energy efficiency of this equipment. For commercial package air-source equipment with capacities between 65,000 and 760,000 Btu/h, ARI Standard 340/360-2004 is the applicable test procedure.
DOE's regulations for covered products and equipment permit a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered commercial equipment if at least one of the following conditions is met: (1) The petitioner's basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; or (2) the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(4). Waivers remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401(g).
On December 16, 2011, Fujitsu submitted a petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure applicable to commercial package air-source and water-source central air conditioners and heat pumps set forth in 10 CFR 431.96. Fujitsu requested the waiver for specified basic model of Fujitsu AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pump with a capacity of 264,000 Btu/h, and specified compatible indoor units. The applicable test procedure for these heat pumps is ARI 340/360-2004. Manufacturers are directed to use these test procedures pursuant to Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.96. Fujitsu seeks a waiver from the applicable test procedures under 10 CFR 431.96 on the grounds that its AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pumps contain design characteristics that prevent testing according to the current DOE test procedures. Fujitsu requested that DOE allow it to test and rate its Airstage V-II multi-split heat pump with a capacity of 264,000 Btu/h, and specified compatible indoor units according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air-conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1230-2010: Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 1230).
On May 16, 2012, DOE published a final rule (77 FR 28928) adopting American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE final rule). The ASHRAE final rule incorporated by reference ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 but omits sections 5.1.2 and 6.6 for the products addressed in this waiver request. The rule was effective on July 16, 2012 and requires use of the test procedure on or after May 13, 2013. This decision and order (D&O) requires Fujitsu to use ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 as addressed in the DOE's May 16, 2012 final rule (77 FR 28928) to test and rate specified models in order to be consistent with future test procedure requirements.
In its December 16, 2011 petition, Fujitsu seeks a waiver from the applicable test procedures under 10 CFR 431.96 on the grounds that its AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split heat pumps contain design characteristics that prevent testing according to the current DOE test procedures. Specifically, Fujitsu asserts that the two primary factors that prevent testing of its AIRSTAGE V-II multi-split variable speed products are the same factors stated in the waivers that DOE granted to Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics America USA, Inc. (Mitsubishi) and other manufacturers for similar lines of commercial multi-split air-conditioning systems:
• Testing laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units; and
• There are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units to test. See, e.g., 72 FR 17528 (April 9, 2007) (Mitsubishi); 76 FR 19069 (April 6, 2011) (Daikin); 76 FR 19078 (April 6, 2011) (Mitsubishi); 76 FR 31951 (June 2, 2011) (Carrier); 76 FR
The AIRSTAGE V-II systems have operational characteristics similar to the commercial multi-split products manufactured by other manufacturers. As indicated above, DOE has already granted waivers for these products. The AIRSTAGE V-II system consists of multiple indoor units connected to an air-cooled outdoor unit. These multi-splits are used in zoned systems where an outdoor or water-source unit can be connected with up to 45 separate indoor units, which need not be the same models. According to Fujitsu, the various indoor and outdoor models can be connected in a multitude of configurations, with many thousands of possible combinations. Consequently, Fujitsu requested that DOE grant a waiver from the applicable test procedures for its AIRSTAGE V-II product designs until a suitable test method is prescribed.
For the reasons discussed above, and because DOE prescribed ANSI/AHRI 1230 as the alternate test procedure in waivers granted to other manufacturers (including the grant of Fujitsu's interim waiver request (77 FR 13107, Mar. 5, 2012)), DOE determined that the equipment specified in Fujitsu's December 16, 2011 petition contains design characteristics that prevent testing according to the DOE test procedure, and that allowing Fujitsu to use as an alternate test procedure ANSI/AHRI 1230, as adopted in DOE's final rule dated May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28928), addresses these testing difficulties.
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff concerning the Fujitsu petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to granting a waiver to Fujitsu.
After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by Fujitsu and consultation with the FTC staff, it is ordered that:
(1) The petition for waiver submitted by Fujitsu (Case No. CAC-039) is hereby granted as set forth in the following paragraphs.
(2) Fujitsu shall be required to test and rate the following basic model groups according to the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (3) of this section.
With nominal cooling capacity of 264,000 Btu/h.
Compatible indoor units for the above listed outdoor units:
(3) Fujitsu shall not be required to test the products listed in paragraph (2) of this section according to the test procedure for commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR 431.96 (ARI Standard 340/360-2004 (incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)-(3)), but instead shall use as the alternate test procedure ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 as adopted in DOE's final rule dated May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28928).
(4)
(i) For multi-split combinations tested in accordance with this alternate test procedure, Fujitsu may make representations based on those test results.
(ii) For multi-split combinations that are not tested, Fujitsu may make representations based on the testing results for the tested combination and that are consistent with one of the following methods:
(a) Rating of non-tested combinations according to an alternative rating method approved by DOE; or
(b) Rating of non-tested combinations having the same outdoor unit and all non-ducted indoor units shall be set equal to the rating of the tested system having all non-ducted indoor units.
(c) Rating of non-tested combinations having the same outdoor unit and all ducted indoor units shall be set equal to the rating of the tested system having all ducted indoor units. To be considered a ducted unit, the indoor unit must be intended to be connected with ductwork and have a rated external static pressure capability greater than zero (0).
(d) Rating of non-tested combinations having the same outdoor unit and a mix of non-ducted and ducted indoor units shall be set equal to the average of the ratings for the two required tested combinations.
(5) This waiver amendment shall remain in effect from the date this Decision and Order is issued, consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401(g). Compliance with the ASHRAE final rule, (77 FR 28928, May 16, 2012), is required as of May 13, 2013. Therefore, this Decision and Order is valid through May 12, 2013. Beginning on May 13, 2013, all manufacturers must use the ASHRAE procedures to determine the energy use of this type of equipment.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Decision and Order.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of the decision and order (Case No. CAC-038) that grants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung) a waiver from the DOE commercial package air-source central air conditioners and heat pumps test procedures for determining the energy consumption set forth in its petition for waiver. Under today's decision and order, Samsung shall be required to test and rate its variable capacity Digital Variable Multi (DVM) (commercial) multi-split heat pumps with cooling capacities ranging from 72,000 Btu/h to 120,000 Btu/h, as specified in its petition using American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air-conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1230, as adopted in DOE's final rule dated May 16, 2012.
This Decision and Order is effective November 16, 2012 through May 12, 2013.
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-71, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email:
DOE issues notice of this Decision and Order in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 431.401(f)(4). In this Decision and Order, DOE grants Samsung a waiver for the variable capacity DVM (commercial) multi-split heat pump equipment specified in its waiver submitted on October 17, 2011. Samsung must test and rate this equipment using ANSI/AHRI 1230, as adopted in DOE's final rule dated May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28928), as the alternative test procedure. DOE's final rule specifies use of ANSI/AHRI 1230, but omits sections 5.1.2 and 6.6.
Today's decision requires Samsung to make representations concerning the energy efficiency of this equipment consistent with the provisions and restrictions of the alternate test procedure in the Decision and Order below, and the representations must fairly disclose the test results. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) The same standard applies to distributors, retailers, and private labelers when making representations of the energy efficiency of this equipment.
Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), established the Energy Conservation Program for certain industrial equipment, which includes commercial air conditioning equipment, the focus of this decision and order.
For commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, EPCA provides that “the test procedures shall be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute [ARI] or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE], as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 30, 1992.” (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If the industry test procedure for commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment is amended, EPCA directs the Secretary to amend the corresponding DOE test procedure unless the Secretary determines, by rule and based on clear and convincing evidence, that such a modified test procedure does not meet the statutory criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule adopting test procedures for commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, effective January 8, 2007. 71 FR 71340. Table 1 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 431.96 directs manufacturers of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment to use the appropriate procedure when measuring energy efficiency of this equipment. For commercial package air-source equipment with capacities between 65,000 and 760,000 Btu/h, ARI Standard 340/360-2004 is the applicable test procedure.
DOE's regulations for covered products and equipment permit a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered commercial equipment if at least one of the following conditions is met: (1) The petitioner's basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; or (2) the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(4). Waivers remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401(g).
On October 17, 2011, Samsung submitted a petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure applicable to commercial package air-source and water-source central air conditioners and heat pumps set forth in 10 CFR 431.96. Samsung requested the waiver for the specified basic model of Samsung's variable capacity Digital Variable Multi (DVM) (commercial) multi-split heat pumps with cooling capacities ranging from 72,000 Btu/h to
On May 16, 2012, DOE published a final rule (77 FR 28928) adopting certain revised efficiency standards and test procedures provided in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE final rule). The ASHRAE final rule incorporated by reference ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 but it omits sections 5.1.2 and 6.6 for the products addressed in this waiver request. The rule was effective on July 16, 2012 and requires use of the test procedure on or after May 13, 2013. This decision and order (D&O) requires Samsung to use ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 as addressed in the DOE's May 16, 2012 final rule (77 FR 28928) to test and rate specified models in order to be consistent with future test procedure requirements.
In its October 17, 2011 petition, Samsung seeks a waiver from the applicable test procedures under 10 CFR 431.96 on the grounds that its DVM multi-split heat pumps contain design characteristics that prevent testing according to the current DOE test procedures. Specifically, Samsung asserts that the two primary factors that prevent testing of its DVM multi-split variable speed products are the same factors stated in the waivers that DOE granted to Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics America USA, Inc. (Mitsubishi) and other manufacturers for similar lines of commercial multi-split air-conditioning systems:
• Testing laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units; and
• There are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units to test.
See, e.g., 72 FR 17528 (April 9, 2007) (Mitsubishi); 76 FR 19069 (April 6, 2011) (Daikin); 76 FR 19078 (April 6, 2011) (Mitsubishi); 76 FR 31951 (June 2, 2011) (Carrier); 76 FR 50204 (August 12, 2011) (Fujitsu General Limited); 76 FR 65710 (October 24, 2011) (Mitsubishi).
The DVM systems have operational characteristics similar to the commercial multi-split products manufactured by other manufacturers. As indicated above, DOE has already granted waivers for these products. The DVM system consists of multiple indoor units connected to an air-cooled outdoor unit. These multi-splits are used in zoned systems where an outdoor or water-source unit can be connected with up to 10 separate indoor units, which need not be the same models. According to Samsung, the various indoor and outdoor models can be connected in a multitude of configurations, with many thousands of possible combinations. Consequently, Samsung requested that DOE grant a waiver from the applicable test procedures for its DVM product designs until a suitable test method can be prescribed.
For the reasons discussed above, and because DOE prescribed ANSI/AHRI 1230 as the alternate test procedure in waivers granted to other manufacturers (including the grant of Samsung's interim waiver request (76 FR 80916, Dec. 27, 2011), DOE determined that the equipment specified in Samsung's October 17, 2011 petition contains design characteristics that prevent testing according to the DOE test procedure, and that allowing Samsung to use as an alternate test procedure ANSI/AHRI 1230, as adopted in DOE's final rule dated May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28928), addresses these testing difficulties.
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff concerning the Samsung petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to granting a waiver to Samsung.
After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by Samsung and consultation with the FTC staff, it is ordered that:
(1) The petition for waiver submitted by the Samsung (Case No. CAC-038) is hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.
(2) Samsung shall be required to test and rate the following basic model groups according to the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (3) of this section.
(3) Samsung shall not be required to test the products listed in paragraph (2) of this section according to the test procedure for commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR 431.96 (ARI Standard 340/360-2004 (incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)-(3)), but instead shall use as the alternate test procedure ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 as adopted in DOE's final rule dated May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28928).
(4)
(i) For multi-split combinations tested in accordance with this alternate test procedure, Samsung may make representations based on those test results.
(ii) For multi-split combinations that are not tested, Samsung may make representations based on the testing results for the tested combination and that are consistent with one of the following methods:
(a) Rating of non-tested combinations according to an alternative rating method approved by DOE; or
(b) Rating of non-tested combinations having the same outdoor unit and all non-ducted indoor units shall be set equal to the rating of the tested system having all non-ducted indoor units.
(c) Rating of non-tested combinations having the same outdoor unit and all ducted indoor units shall be set equal to the rating of the tested system having all ducted indoor units. To be considered a ducted unit, the indoor unit must be intended to be connected with ductwork and have a rated external static pressure capability greater than zero (0).
(d) Rating of non-tested combinations having the same outdoor unit and a mix of non-ducted and ducted indoor units shall be set equal to the average of the ratings for the two required tested combinations.
(5) This waiver amendment shall remain in effect from the date this Decision and Order is issued, consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401(g). Compliance with the ASHRAE final rule, (77 FR 28928, May 16, 2012), is required beginning on May 13, 2013. Therefore, this D&O is valid through May 12, 2013. Beginning on May 13, 2013, all manufacturers must use the amended DOE test procedures to determine the energy use of this type of equipment.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Daniel Lissner, General Counsel, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at (978) 283-2822.
Alan Topalian, Regulatory Attorney, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at (978) 283-2822.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
m. The applications are not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n. The proposed Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be located on the Muskingum River at river mile (RM) 24.6, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 75-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) a 160-foot by 75-foot powerhouse located downstream of the dam on the left bank of the Muskingum River; (3) two turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 3.0 megawatts (MW); (4) a 65-foot-long, 75-foot-wide draft tube section; (5) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation; (6) a 970-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kilovolt (kV) transmission line to connect the project substation to the local utility distribution lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be about 17,853 megawatt-hours (MWh).
The proposed Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be located at RM 5.8, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 160-foot-long, 66-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) a 160-foot by 80-foot powerhouse located on the bank of the Muskingum River opposite the existing lock; (3) two turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 4.0 MW; (4) a 65-foot-long, 80-foot-wide draft tube section; (5) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation; (6) a 3,600-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV transmission line to connect the project substation to the local utility distribution lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be about 20,760 MWh.
The proposed Malta Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be located at RM 49.4, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) a 160-foot by 80-foot powerhouse located adjacent to the right bank of the dam; (3) two turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 4.0 MW; (4) a 65-foot-long, 80-foot-wide draft tube section; (5) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation; (6) a 1,500-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV transmission line to connect the project substation to the local utility distribution lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be about 21,895 MWh.
The proposed Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be located at RM 13.6, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) a 160-foot by 75-foot powerhouse located adjacent to the left bank of the dam; (3) two turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 5 MW; (4) a 65-foot-long, 75-foot-wide draft tube section; (5) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation; (6) a 1,200-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV transmission line to connect the project substation to the local utility distribution lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be about 30,996 MWh.
The proposed Philo Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be located at RM 68.6, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 40-foot-long, 20-foot-high flap gate bay; (2) a 37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing trash racks; (3) a 160-foot by 75-foot
The proposed Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be located at RM 57.4, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) a 160-foot by 75-foot powerhouse located on the bank of the Muskingum River opposite the existing lock; (3) two turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 4 MW; (4) a 65-foot-long, 75-foot-wide draft tube section; (5) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation; (6) a 490-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV transmission line to connect the project substation to the local utility distribution lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be about 17,182 MWh.
The proposed Zanesville Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be located at RM 77.4, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 135-foot-long, 16-foot-high, 30-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) two 10-foot diameter, 62-foot-long buried steel penstocks; (3) a 45-foot by 37-foot powerhouse located approximately 2,750 feet downstream of the dam; (4) two turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 2 MW; (5) a 31-foot-long, 37-foot-wide draft tube; (6) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation; (7) a 400-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV transmission line to connect the project substation to the local utility distribution lines; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be about 12,295 MWh.
The applicant proposes to operate all seven projects in a run-of-river mode, such that the water surface elevations within each project impoundment would be maintained at the crest of each respective dam spillway.
o. A copy of the applications are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
p. Procedural schedule: The applications will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.
Final amendments to the applications must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Notice of Change in Status of Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC,
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Rose Lake Expansion Project involving the modification of compression facilities by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP) in Bradford and Tioga Counties, Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on December 10, 2012.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
TGP provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?”. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
TGP proposes to construct, abandon, and replace certain compression facilities at three existing compressor stations on its 300 Line in northeastern Pennsylvania. The proposed Rose Lake Expansion Project includes the following:
• Installation of a new 12,630 horsepower (hp) compressor unit, ancillary equipment, and station piping modifications at Station 315 in Tioga County, Pennsylvania;
• Abandonment in place of two 4,500 hp compressor units and replacing these with the installation of a new 12,661 hp compressor unit, ancillary equipment, and station piping modifications at Station 319 in Bradford County, Pennsylvania; and
• Abandonment by removal of an existing gear box and compressor unit and replacement with a new gear box and compressor unit, ancillary equipment, and station piping modifications at Station 317 in Bradford County, Pennsylvania.
Construction of the project would disturb about 70 acres of land, of which approximately 5.4 acres would be permanently impacted. All land disturbance would occur on land owned by TGP adjacent to its existing facilities. The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• Land use;
• Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• Cultural resources;
• Vegetation and wildlife;
• Air quality and noise;
• Endangered and threatened species; and
• Public safety.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 4.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before December 10, 2012.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP13-3-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are current right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with Commission and are available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The proposed project would be a closed-loop pumped storage system, with an initial fill from the existing Otter Creek reservoir. Parker Knoll would include the following new facilities: (1) An approximately 175-feet-high upper main dam with a crest length of approximately 1,650 feet and one saddle dam; (2) an upper reservoir with a storage capacity of approximately 6,780 acre-feet and a surface area of approximately 110 acres; (3) an approximately 100-feet-high lower dam with a crest length of approximately 1,750 feet and two saddle dams; (4) a lower reservoir with storage capacity of approximately 6,760 acre-feet and a surface area of approximately 130 acres; (5) a 2,390-feet-long and 27-feet-diameter headrace tunnel; (6) a 2,200-feet-long and 27-feet-diameter vertical shaft; (7) a 1,000-feet-long and 27-feet-diameter steel-lined penstock tunnel; (8) a 7,126-feet-long and 35-feet-diameter tailrace tunnel; (9) a powerhouse containing four variable speed, reversible pump-turbine units with a minimum rating of 250 megawatt (MW); (10) an approximately 585-feet by 340-feet substation; (11) a 16-inch diameter and 68,000-feet-long fill pipeline and system; (12) approximately one mile of 345-kV transmission line; and (13) appurtenant facilities. The project would occupy 458.7 acres of federal land and would have an estimated annual generation of 2,630 gigawatt hours.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
n.
FERC staff will conduct one agency scoping meeting and one public meeting. The agency scoping meeting will focus on resource agency and non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while the public scoping meeting is primarily for public input. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope of the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EIS. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EIS were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at
At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EIS; (2) solicit from the meeting participants all available information, especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage statements from experts and the public on issues that should be analyzed in the EIS, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource issues to be addressed in the EIS; and (5) identify those issues that require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not require a detailed analysis.
The meetings are recorded by a court reporter and become part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.
Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the EIS.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The proposed project would utilize the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Braddock Locks and Dam and the Braddock Pool, and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A new powerhouse with five turbine-generators having a total installed capacity of 3,750 kilowatts; (2) a new approximately 3,450-foot-long, 23-kilovolt electric distribution line; (3) a switchyard and control room; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation is estimated to be 25,020 megawatt-hours.
The proposed project would deploy hydropower turbines within a patented “Large Frame Module” (LFM) that would be deployed on the south (river left) side of the dam, opposite the location of the existing navigational locks and at the upstream face of the existing left closure weir. The proposed modular, low environmental impact powerhouse would be approximately 60.4 feet long, 16.6 feet wide, and 40 feet high, and constructed of structural-grade steel. The powerhouse will bear on a concrete foundation on rock that is anchored to the existing left closure weir. A trash rack with 6-inch openings would be placed at the powerhouse intake to increase safety and protect the turbines from large debris.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
The Commission intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
FERC staff will conduct one daytime scoping meeting and one evening meeting. The daytime scoping meeting will focus on resource agency and non-governmental organization (NGO) concerns, while the evening scoping meeting is primarily for public input. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist the staff in identifying the scope of the environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA are being distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at
The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a project Environmental Site Review beginning at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday December 5, 2012. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend. All participants should meet in the parking lot at the Great Allegheny Passage Trailhead, Pump House, 880 East Waterfront Drive, Munhall, Pennsylvania at 10:00 a.m. All participants are responsible for their own transportation to the site.
At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2) solicit from the meeting participants all available information, especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage statements from experts and the public on issues that should be analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those issues that require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not require a detailed analysis.
The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.
Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meetings and to assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the EA.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of CPV Shore, LLC's application for market-
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 29, 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(s) 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Shiloh IV Lessee, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 29, 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(s) 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Chisholm View Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 19, 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(s) 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of CPV Maryland, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 29, 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(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff will hold a one-day conference on Order No. 768.
There will be a morning session and an afternoon session. The public may attend. The conference will principally address satisfying the Electric Quarterly Reports (EQRs) reporting requirements. The conference will not address the merits of issues raised on rehearing of Order No. 768. Advance registration is not required but is encouraged. Please register at
The morning session will begin at 9:00 a.m. (EST) and is intended for new EQR filers who are not currently filing EQR reports. However, anyone may attend. FERC staff will provide introductory and background information about the EQR, including data fields that existed prior to Order No. 768. These data fields include information on seller names, customer names, contract data, transaction data, product type, quantity, and rate, among others.
The afternoon session will begin at 1:00 p.m. (EST). This session is intended for all EQR filers, including new filers, and will focus on refinements to the existing filing requirements as set forth in Order No. 768, including the new data fields. The requirements for these data fields will include (1) reporting the trade date and type of rate; (2) identifying the exchange used for a sales transaction, if applicable; (3) reporting whether a broker was used to consummate a transaction; (4) reporting electronic tag ID data; and (5) reporting standardized prices and quantities for energy, capacity, and booked out power transactions, among others.
A free webcast of the conference will be available through
Commission staff encourages participants to email questions in advance to
The conference will be transcribed and the transcript placed in the record in Docket No. RM 10-12.
FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information on this conference, please contact Sarah McKinley at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has authorized its contractor, Abt Associates, Inc. (Abt) of Cambridge, MA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).
Access to the confidential data occurred on or about October 11, 2012.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at
Under EPA Contract Number EP-W-12-001, contractor Abt of 55 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, MA is assisting the EPA in developing public information products for the 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) data. These products shall include individual fact sheets; a natural report with various descriptions of the data resulting from data queries and associated program analyses; trend analysis and other items.
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA Contract Number EP-W-12-001, Abt requires access to CBI submitted to EPA under section 8 of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. Abt's personnel were given access to information submitted to EPA under section 8 of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under section 8 of TSCA that EPA is providing Abt access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and Abt's Bethesda, MD and Cambridge, MA sites, in accordance with EPA's
Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until November 30, 2016. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
Abt's personnel were required to sign nondisclosure agreements and were briefed on appropriate security procedures before they were permitted access to TSCA CBI.
Environmental protection, Confidential business information.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has authorized its contractor, Eastern Research Group (ERG) of Chantilly, VA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).
Access to the confidential data occurred on or about September 26, 2012.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at
Under EPA Contract Number EP-C-12-021, contractor ERG of 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200, Chantilly, VA, will assist the EPA in data analysis of data and reports provided by industry on hydraulic fracturing. The work includes preparation of technical analysis and technical information; and report preparation.
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA Contract Number EP-C-12-021, ERG will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. ERG's personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide ERG access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and ERG's Chantilly, VA site, in accordance with EPA's
Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until September 26, 2017. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
ERG's personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.
Environmental protection, Confidential business information.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Vermont's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective December 17, 2012 for the State of Vermont's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency; and on November 16, 2012 for the State of Vermont's other authorized programs.
Evi Huffer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1697,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On December 5, 2011, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) submitted an application titled “Online Report Submittal System Electronic Document Receiving System” for revisions/modifications of its EPA-authorized programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed VT DEC's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Vermont's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 51, 60-63, 70, 141, 144-148, 262-265, 266, 268, 270-271, and 403 is being published in the
Part 52—Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Part 61—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Part 62—Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants;
Part 63—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories;
Part 70—State Operating Permit Programs;
Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation;
Part 147—State Underground Injection Control Programs;
Part 272—Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs; and
Part 403—General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution.
VT DEC was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of Vermont's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
(2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request; and
(3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
As of October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing purposes; all submissions on or after October 1, 2012 must be made through e-NEPA.
While this system eliminates the need to submit paper or CD copies to EPA to meet filing requirements, electronic submission does not change requirements for distribution of EISs for public review and comment. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first register with EPA's electronic reporting site—
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Pesticide Programs is
The PPDC meeting will be held on Thursday, November 29, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Friday, November 30, 2012, from 9 a.m. to noon. On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, PPDC work group meetings are scheduled as follows: Integrated Pest Management from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; Comparative Safety Statements from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; and Pollinator Protection from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; and on Thursday, November 29, 2012, the PPDC Work Group on 21st Century Toxicology/Integrated Testing Strategies will meet from noon to 1:15 p.m. in N-4850-70 Potomac Yards North. Information regarding PPDC Work Groups is available on EPA's Web site at
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under
The PPDC and Work Group meetings will be held at EPA's location at 1 Potomac Yard South, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The PPDC meeting will be held in the lobby-level Conference Center. The PPDC Work Group on Pollinator Protection will meet on November 28, 2012, in the lobby-level Conference Center. The PPDC Work Group on Integrated Pest Management will meet on November 28, 2012, in room S-4850-70 Potomac Yards South. The PPDC Work Group on Comparative Safety Statements will meet on November 28, 2012, in S-4370-80 Potomac Yards South. On November 29, 2012, the PPDC Work Group on 21st Century Toxicology/Integrated Testing Strategies will meet in N-4850-70 Potomac Yards North. EPA's Potomac Yard South building is approximately one mile from the Crystal City Metro Station.
Margie Fehrenbach, Office of Pesticide Programs (7501P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-4775; fax number: (703) 308-4776; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental, consumer, and farm worker groups; pesticide users and growers; animal rights groups; pest consultants; State, local, and tribal governments; academia; public health organizations; and the public. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0873, is available at
The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the responsibility to help ensure the safety of the American food supply, the education and protection from unreasonable risk of those who apply or are exposed to pesticides occupationally or through use of products, and general protection of the environment and special ecosystems from potential risks posed by pesticides.
The Charter for EPA's PPDC was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995, and has been renewed every 2 years since that time. PPDC's Charter was renewed October 28, 2011, for another 2-year period. The purpose of PPDC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides. It is determined that PPDC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law. The following sectors are represented on the current PPDC: Environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health organizations.
Copies of the PPDC Charter are filed with appropriate committees of Congress and the Library of Congress and are available upon request.
PPDC meetings are open to the public and seating is available on a first-come basis. Persons interested in attending do not need to register in advance of the meeting. Comments may be made during the public comment session of each meeting or in writing to the address listed under
Environmental protection, Agricultural workers, Agriculture, Chemicals, Endangered species, Foods, Integrated pest management, Pesticide labels, Pesticides and pests, Public health, Spray drift, 21st Century toxicology.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
There will be a 4-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review scientific issues associated with Prioritizing the Universe of Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Chemicals Using Computational Toxicology Tools.
The meeting will be held on January 29-February 1, 2013, from approximately 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
•
•
•
If your comments contain any information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under
Sharlene Matten, DFO, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0130; fax number: (202) 564-8382; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0818 in the subject line on the first page of your request.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• Organic and analytical chemistry (expertise focused on developing criteria for physical chemical properties that cannot be easily tested in
•
• Quantitative structural-activity relationship (QSAR) models and estrogen receptor (ER) expert systems development.
• High-throughput data generation and analysis (expertise focused on how this methodology can be applied to assess toxicity potential of environmental compounds with a range of potency).
• Application of QSAR models and expert systems in prioritization processes for regulatory toxicity testing programs.
The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates selecting approximately 12-15 ad hoc scientists.
FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will evaluate the candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the candidate is considered further for service on FIFRA SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site at
FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the SAP. As a peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency.
Under the 1996 FFDCA, section 408(p), and Safe Drinking Water Act, section 1457, EPA is required to screen all pesticide chemicals (active and inert ingredients) and only those drinking water contaminants to which a “substantial population” is exposed for the
In 2009, EPA developed the Estrogen Receptor (ER) Expert System (ERES) to help prioritize candidate chemicals specific to an estrogen receptor (ER) mediated pathway for testing in the Tier 1 Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. The ERES was initially developed for pesticide, food use inert ingredients and antimicrobial pesticides and predicts ER binding affinity based on data derived from two types of
EPA incorporated the 2009 SAP's recommendations and is expanding the ERES training set through the use of chemical read across techniques (i.e., using data from a tested chemical for a particular property or effect to a similar untested chemical) and
While this SAP is focused on the estrogenic toxicity pathway, the recommendations may be more broadly applied for additional toxicity pathways (e.g., androgen and thyroid). In addition, this SAP review will establish a solid foundation upon which the agency seeks to build upon as we advance the use of these computational toxicology tools beyond EDSP chemical prioritization and into Tier 1 data replacement.
EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available at least 15 days prior to the meeting. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, at
FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site or may be obtained from the OPP Docket or at
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122 (i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement concerning the Agrifos Phosphoric Acid Release Superfund Site in Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
The settlement requires the settling party to pay a total of $385,000 as payment of response costs to the Hazardous Substances Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 17, 2012.
The proposed settlement and additional background information relating to the settlement are available for public inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Robert Werner at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 665-6724. Comments should reference the Agrifos Phosphoric Acid Release Site, Pasadena, Harris County, Texas and EPA Docket Number 06-01-13, and should be addressed to Robert Werner at the address listed above.
Elizabeth Pletan, Assistant Regional Counsel, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-8525.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice of 25 day comment period regarding an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million.
To support the export of U.S. services and equipment for the construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Australia.
Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the items being exported:
Production of LNG.
To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the item(s) being exported are not likely to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.
Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2012 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.
Comments may be submitted through
This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of the United States has received an application for a $135 million direct loan to support the export of approximately $103 million in U.S. aluminum manufacturing equipment and services to a smelter in the United Arab Emirates. The U.S. exports will enable the foreign buyer to increase its production capacity of aluminum by about 574,000 metric tons of aluminum per year. Available information indicates that the majority of this new foreign production will be sold in the following markets: Netherlands, Japan, United Arab Emirates, United States, South Korea, and Thailand. The balance of the foreign production will be sold to China, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction by email to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before December 17, 2012. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), via fax at 202-395-5167 or via Internet at
Judith B. Herman, Office of Managing Director, FCC, at 202-418-0214.
Under the Commission's E911 rules, a wireless carrier must provide E911 service to a particular Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within six months only if that PSAP makes a request for the service and is capable of receiving and utilizing the information provided. In the City of Richardson, TX Order, the Commission's actions were intended to facilitate the E911 implementation process by encouraging parties to communicate with each other earl in the implementation process, and to maintain a constructive, on-going dialog throughout the implementation process. See the 60 day notice for more details on the specific information collection requirements in this information collection which was published in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before January 15, 2013. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, via the Internet at
Judith B. Herman, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418-0214.
Information on private land mobile licensees is maintained in the Commission's system of records. The licensee records will be publicly available and routinely used in accordance with subsection b of the Privacy Act.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before January 15, 2013. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202-395-5167 or via Internet at
Judith B. Herman, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418-0214.
This collection will promote Congress' goal of regulatory parity for all Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) and encourage the participation of a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, in the SMR industry. In addition, this collection will establish rules for the SMR services in order to streamline the licensing process and provide a flexible operating environment for licensees, foster competition, and promote the delivery of service to all areas of the country, including rural areas.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and further ways to reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before January 15, 2013. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), via the Internet at
Leslie F. Smith, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418-0217. For additional information, contact Leslie F. Smith at (202) 418-0217, or via the Internet at
On April 7, 2011, the FCC released a
Section 1.1424 states that the procedures for handling pole attachment complaints filed by incumbent local exchange carriers are the same as the procedures for handling other pole attachment complaints. Section 1.1424 further requires incumbent local exchange carriers that claim they are similarly-situated to other attachers to bear the burden of demonstrating their similarity.
The Commission has also revised Section 1.1403(b) which requires that requests for access to a utility's poles, ducts, conduits or rights-of-way by a telecommunications carrier or cable operator be in writing. If access is not granted within 45 days of the request for access, the utility must explain the denial or grant of access conditioned on the performance of make-ready by the 45th day.
The other applicable rule sections remain unchanged:
Section 1.1403(c) requires a utility to provide a cable television system operator or telecommunications carrier no less than 60 days written notice prior to removal of facilities, termination of any services to those facilities, increase in pole attachment rates, or modification of facilities.
Section 1.1403(d) allows a cable television system operator or telecommunications carrier to file a “Petition for Temporary Stay” of the action contained in a notice received pursuant to Section 1.1403(c) within 15 days of receipt of such notice. The “Petition for Temporary Stay” must contain, in concise terms, the relief sought, the reasons for such relief, including a showing of irreparable harm and likely cessation of cable television service or telecommunications service, a copy of the notice, and a certificate of service. The named respondent may file an answer within 7 days of the date the Petition was filed.
Section 1.1403(e) requires cable operators to notify pole owners upon offering telecommunications services.
Section 1.1404 specifies the information that must be included in a pole attachment complaint.
Section 1.1406(b) requires a complainant to file additional information supporting its complaint, if requested by the Commission.
Section 1.1407 requires the respondent to file a response within 30 days from the date the complaint was filed. The complainant then has 20 days from the date the response was filed to file a reply. The response and reply shall be served on all parties listed in the certificate of service.
Section 1.1414 requires states that regulate the rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments to file a certification with the FCC.
Section 1.1417 requires a utility to apportion the cost of providing unusable space on a pole so that such apportionment equals two-thirds of the costs of providing unusable space that would be allocated to such entity under an equal apportionment of such costs among all attaching entities. Section 1.1417 sets forth the procedures to be followed in establishing a maximum just and reasonable pole attachment rate.
The Commission gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101) effective on the date shown.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships announces the followingmeeting:
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 and send comments to Ron Otten, at CDC 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Spectrum of Flavoring Chemical-Related Lung Disease—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research
Preliminary evidence suggests that flavorings exposures may be associated with restrictive lung disease in exposed workers. In two previous NIOSH health hazard evaluations, we found excesses of restrictive spirometry among workers in a flavoring manufacturing plant and a flavoring-exposed food production plant. There was virtually no obstructive lung disease in either of these health hazard evaluations. Over the course of eight cross-sectional studies at a microwave popcorn plant, we also found strong relationships between decreases in FEV1 and cumulative exposure estimates, without differentiating between obstructive and restrictive abnormalities.
NIOSH requests OMB approval to collect additional information on a subset of participants from previous NIOSH studies to determine if restrictive lung disease is occurring among flavoring and popcorn workers. Diagnostic methods for restrictive lung disease will be applied in field settings. This will include spirometry, lung volume testing such as total lung capacity (TLC) and diffusing capacity of the lung to carbon monoxide (DLCO), as well as high resolution computed tomography (HRCT), which can detect lung abnormalities consistent with interstitial lung disease. These medical tests are critical to establishing lung disease of a fibrotic or inflammatory nature in persons with spirometric restriction.
Recent literature has demonstrated that bronchiolitis obliterans and obstructive lung disease are related to flavoring exposures in an exposure-dependent way. However, secondary prevention of further impairment among flavoring workers with spirometric restriction and excessive declines in lung function of a restrictive nature is not occurring. Flavoring workers with restrictive abnormalities are not identified as having possible occupational lung disease, are not removed from further flavorings exposure, are not counseled about respiratory protection and work practices, and are unlikely to be successful in claims for work-related lung disease and medical expenses. These cases of restrictive spirometric abnormality do not motivate employers to implement controls to prevent lung injury to co-workers or to enhance medical surveillance programs.
Results from this study will benefit many stakeholders, including physicians who can appropriately manage workers with restrictive lung disease with consideration of enhanced respiratory protection or reassignment; workers who can make decisions regarding continued exposures and apply for compensation if warranted; companies who can set data driven priorities for preventive interventions; and policy makers who can recommend measures to prevent flavoring-related lung diseases.
For this study, we will recruit participants from two study populations: approximately 100 workers from a flavorings plant for whom we have spirometry data and 130 workers that had abnormal spirometry on any test from a previous NIOSH health hazard evaluation at a microwave popcorn plant. Thirty additional workers from the microwave popcorn plant who had normal spirometry on their last test also will be chosen at random.
NIOSH anticipates that information collection will begin during the summer of 2013 for the microwave popcorn workers and for the flavorings workers in the summer of 2014. Both study populations will be offered a questionnaire, spirometry, TLC test, DLCO, and HRCT of the chest. Those with abnormal spirometry will also be offered a bronchodilator test. Testing is expected to take between 3 to 3.25 hours per respondent. All testing will be conducted by trained NIOSH personnel, except for the HRCT chest scan, which will be done at a local hospital or radiology clinic. Participants will receive a letter which will explain their testing results. All study results will be stored at NIOSH.
The total estimated burden for the one-time collection of data is 822 hours. This is an overestimate of the actual burden to account for any possible waiting at the radiology clinic. Participation in this study is voluntary, and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Nationally Notifiable Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Morbidity Surveillance (OMB No. 0920-0819, Expiration 08/31/2012)—Reinstatement with Change—National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Because the STD epidemiology in the United States is changing rapidly, CDC must continue to monitor disease indicators that are included in the STD surveillance currently being implemented. CDC is proposing to continue electronic information collection which includes information elements that are integrated into the existing nationally notifiable STDs. These information elements are beyond the scope of the OMB-approved collection called Weekly and Annual Morbidity and Mortality Reports (MMWR, OMB #0920-0007). This ongoing collection will have a title change from “Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Morbidity Surveillance” to “Nationally Notifiable Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Morbidity Surveillance and provides evidence to better define STD distribution and epidemiology in the United States. The surveillance system modifies several data elements currently included in the MMWR collection and add others to produce a set of sensitive indicators. This surveillance will continue to provide the evidence to enhance our understanding of STDs, develop intervention strategies, and evaluate the impact of ongoing control efforts. CDC works closely with state and local STD control programs to monitor and respond to STD outbreaks and trends in STD-associated risk behavior. Users of data include, but are not limited to, congressional offices, state and local health agencies, health care providers, and other health-related groups.
CDC disseminates all STD surveillance information through the MMWR series of publications, including the MMWR, the CDC Surveillance Summaries, the Recommendations and Reports, and the annual Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Additionally, DSTDP publishes an annual STD-specific surveillance summary and supplements in hard copy and on the Internet
There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 989.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
Teleconference login information is as follows:
TOLL-FREE PHONE #: 800-857-4875.
Participant passcode: 9377.
Net Conference URL:
Conference number: PW6978681.
Audience passcode: 9377, or
Public can join the event directly:
There is also a toll number for anyone outside of the USA:
TOLL # 1-212-287-1661.
Participant passcode: 9377.
Please go to the ACBCYW meeting Web page to register for this meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This is a notice in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i) that the Technology Transfer Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is thinking about giving a co-exclusive license in Africa, in the field of use of veterinary vaccines, to practice the inventions listed in the patent applications referred to below to Deltamune Ltd., having a place of business in Centurion, South Africa. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the government of the United States of America. The patent applications(s) to be licensed are:
US Provisional Application 61/016,065, filed 12/21/2007, entitled “Development of Rift Valley Fever Virus Utilizing Reverse Genetics,” US Provisional Application 61/042,987, filed 4/7/2008, entitled “Recombinant Rift Valley Fever (RVF) Viruses and Method of Use,” PCT Application PCT/US2008/087023, filed 12/16/2008, entitled “Recombinant Rift Valley Fever (RVF) Viruses and Method of Use,” US National Stage Application 12/809,561, filed 6/18/2010, entitled “Recombinant Rift Valley Fever (RVF) Viruses and Methods of Use,” and all related continuing and foreign patents/patent applications for the technology family. CDC Technology ID No. I-008-08.
The planned co-exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by CDC on or before December 17, 2012 will be considered.
Requests for a copy of these patent applications, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the planned license should be directed to Donald Prather, J.D., Ph.D., Technology Licensing and Marketing Specialist, Technology Transfer Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop K-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-8612; Facsimile: (770) 488-8615; Email:
Applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to giving the planned license.
Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This is a notice in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i) that the Technology Transfer Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is thinking of giving a co-exclusive license in Africa, and an exclusive license in all territories other than Africa, in the field of use of veterinary vaccines, to practice the inventions listed in the patent applications referred to below to Merial Limited, having a place of business in Duluth, Georgia. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the government of the United States of America. The patent application(s) to be licensed are:
US Provisional Application 61/016,065, filed 12/21/2007, entitled “Development of Rift Valley Fever Virus Utilizing Reverse Genetics,” US Provisional Application 61/
The planned co-exclusive license and exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by CDC on or before December 17, 2012 will be considered.
Requests for a copy of these patent applications, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the planned license should be directed to Donald Prather, J.D., Ph.D., Technology Licensing and Marketing Specialist, Technology Transfer Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop K-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-8612; Facsimile: (770) 488-8615; Email:
Applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to giving the planned license.
Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This is a notice in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i) that the Technology Transfer Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is thinking about giving a worldwide, exclusive license to practice the inventions listed in the patent referred to below to Flow Applications, Inc., having a place of business in Okawville, Illinois. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the government of the United States of America. The patent to be licensed is:
US Patent 7,642,068, entitled, “Multiple-Valent Opsonophagocytic Assay Selection Panel Arrays and Uses Therefor”, issued 1/5/2010. CDC Technology ID No. I-035-04.
The planned exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by CDC on or before December 3, 2012 will be considered.
Requests for a copy of this patent, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated license should be directed to Donald Prather, J.D., Ph.D., Technology Licensing and Marketing Specialist, Technology Transfer Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop K-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-8612; Facsimile: (770) 488-8615: Email:
Applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to giving the planned license.
Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Respirators with Composite Protection for Wildland Fire-Fighting Operations; Notice of Testing and Evaluation.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National
Wildland firefighting presents many hazards to firefighters, including inhalation exposure to smoke and other combustion (fire) byproducts. Studies indicate that most wildland firefighters work in smoke levels that are not expected to cause health problems or exceed legal and recommended limits.
NIOSH is now accepting applications for respiratory protective devices designed for the inhalation hazards of this occupational setting.
On July 10, 2012 NIOSH issued a letter to manufacturers
Under NFPA 1984, the wildland firefighter respirator must be approved by NIOSH as an APR or a PAPR. NIOSH has developed test procedures for a composite particulate and multi-gas protection for APR and PAPR approvals in accordance with 42 CFR 84.60(b); 84.63(a), (b), (c), and (d); 84.110(c); and 84.190(b). The standard test procedures are available upon request and will be available on the NIOSH NPPTL Web site at:
Tim Rehak, NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), P.O. Box 18070, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236; (412) 386-5200 (this is not a toll-free number).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
3.
The overall burden of hours and expected number of respondents increase is based on projected future service growth and projected future increases in staffing to accommodate the increased demand to utilize the SHIP network to raise awareness about new CMS policies, outreach initiatives, or both. However, the instruments themselves have not changed.
4.
The data will also include the variables on the eight item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-10) to assess heath status, functioning and quality of life. In the KCCQ, an overall summary score can be derived from the physical function, symptoms (frequency and severity), social function and quality of life domains. For each domain, the validity, reproducibility, responsiveness and interpretability have been independently established. Scores are transformed to a range of 0-100, in which higher scores reflect better health status.
The conduct of the STS/ACC TVT Registry and the KCCQ-10 is in accordance with Section 1142 of the Social Security Act (the Act) that describes the authority of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Under section 1142, research may be conducted and supported on the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures to identify the manner in which disease, disorders, and other health conditions can be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically. Section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act allows Medicare to cover under coverage with evidence development (CED) certain items or services for which the evidence is not adequate to support coverage under section 1862(a)(1)(A) and where additional data gathered in the context of a clinical setting would further clarify the impact of these items and services on the health of beneficiaries.
The data collected and analyzed in the TVT Registry will be used by CMS to determine if the TAVR is reasonable and necessary (e.g., improves health outcomes) for Medicare beneficiaries under Section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Furthermore, data from the Registry will assist the medical device industry and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in surveillance of the quality, safety and efficacy of new medical devices to treat aortic stenosis. For purposes of the TAVR NCD, The TVT Registry has contracted with the Data Analytic Centers to conduct the analyses. In addition, data will be made available for research purposes under the terms of a data use agreement that only provides de-identified datasets.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web site
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on December 17, 2012. OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer,Fax Number: (202) 395-6974, Email:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 17, 2012.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7726,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This draft guidance provides information on the implementation of section 901 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, which authorizes FDA to require certain drug and biological product application holders to make safety related labeling changes based upon new safety information that becomes available after the drug or biological product is approved under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) or the Public Health Service Act. FDA plans to request safety labeling changes by sending a notification letter to the application holder. Under section 505(o)(4)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(o)(4)(B)), the application holder must respond to FDA's notification by submitting a labeling supplement or notifying FDA that the applicant does not believe the labeling change is warranted and submitting a statement detailing the reasons why the application holder does not believe a change is warranted (a rebuttal statement).
The submission of rebuttal statements may result in the collection of information that is not already approved by OMB. Based on FDA's experience thus far with safety labeling changes requirements under section 505(o)(4) of the FD&C Act, FDA estimates that approximately six application holders will elect to submit approximately one rebuttal statement each year and that each rebuttal statement will take approximately 6 hours to prepare.
In addition, in the draft guidance, the Agency states that new labeling prepared in response to a safety labeling change notification should be available on the application holder's Web site within 10 calendar days of approval, which may result in the collection of information that is not already approved by OMB. FDA estimates that approximately 197 application holders will post new labeling one time each year in response to a safety labeling change notification and that the posting of the labeling will take approximately 4 hours to prepare.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of the collections of information that have not already been approved by OMB is as follows:
This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information. Specifically, the draft guidance describes: Labeling supplements for new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications, and biologics license applications submitted under 21 CFR 314.70, 314.71, 314.97, and 601.12, and the content and format of prescription drug labeling submitted under 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57. These collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA and are approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0001, 0910-0338, and 0910-0572. Section V of the draft guidance refers to the guidance entitled “Formal Dispute Resolution: Appeals Above the Division Level,” which describes collections of information approved under OMB control number 0910-0430.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public. This meeting is being rescheduled due to the postponement of the November 1, 2012, meeting due to unanticipated weather conditions caused by hurricane Sandy.
The CoAxia NeuroFlo Catheter is a 7F multilumen device with two balloons mounted near the distal tip. The proximal end has a multiport manifold that provides access for the guidewire, monitoring of blood pressure, and independent inflation of the individual balloons. The device is placed in the descending aorta. On March 30, 2005, a humanitarian device exemption application for the CoAxia NeuroFlo Catheter was approved for the following indication for use: The CoAxia NeuroFlo Catheter is intended for the treatment of cerebral ischemia resulting from symptomatic vasospasm following aneurismal subarachnoid hemorrhage, secured by either surgical or endovascular intervention for patients who have failed maximal medical management.
Of note, the CoAxia NeuroFlo Catheter is identical in design to the CoAxia FloControl, which is currently cleared for the following general indications for use:
1. The CoAxia FloControl Catheter is intended for use in selectively stopping or controlling flow in the peripheral vasculature (K023914).
2. The CoAxia FloControl Catheter is intended for use in selectively stopping or controlling flow in the peripheral vasculature, which includes the descending aorta (K090970).
CoAxia has submitted a de novo application for the NeuroFlo for the following indication: The CoAxia NeuroFlo Catheter is intended for use in diversion of cardiac output via partial occlusion of the descending aorta, including patients with acute ischemic stroke within 14 hours of symptom onset. The CoAxia NeuroFlo Catheter is also intended for use in selectively stopping or controlling blood flow in the peripheral vasculature, which includes the descending aorta.
FDA is convening this committee to seek expert scientific and clinical opinion on the risks and benefits of this device based on the available premarket and postmarket data. In particular, the committee will be asked to discuss the safety and effectiveness data from the “Safety and Efficacy of NeuroFlo Technology in Ischemic Stroke” (SENTIS) clinical trial as they relate to the proposed indications for use.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams, Committee Management Staff, 301-796-5966, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public hearing; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public hearing to obtain input on establishing a list of qualifying pathogens (i.e., those that have the potential to pose a serious threat to public health), as required under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). This public hearing is being held to obtain comments from the public to determine the methodology that should be used in developing the list of qualifying pathogens, and to elicit suggestions for adding specific pathogens to the list.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lee Lemley (see
FDA will notify registered presenters of their scheduled times, and will make available an agenda at
A live Webcast of this public hearing will be viewable at the following Web site:
To permit time for all interested persons to submit data, information, or views on this subject, the administrative record of the hearing will remain open until January 25, 2013.
Title VIII of FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-144), entitled “Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN),” amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to add new section 505E (21 U.S.C. 355E), among other things. This new section of the FD&C Act is designed to encourage development of treatments for serious or life-threatening infections caused by bacteria or fungi. For an application for a drug that is designated a “qualified infectious disease product” under section 505E(d) of the FD&C Act, section 505E(a) provides an extension of 5 years of market exclusivity to the exclusivity periods provided by sections 505(c)(3)(E)(ii) through (c)(3)(E)(iv) (21 U.S.C. 355(c)(3)(E)(ii) through (c)(3)(E)(iv)), 505(j)(5)(F)(ii) through (j)(5)(F)(iv) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(F)(ii) through (j)(5)(F)(iv)), 505A (21 U.S.C. 355a), and 527 (21 U.S.C. 360cc) of the FD&C Act. However, as section 505E(c) of the FD&C Act states, not all applications for a “qualified infectious disease product” are eligible for the additional market exclusivity. In addition, an application for a drug designated as a “qualified infectious disease product” is eligible for priority review and fast track status (sections 524A and 506(a)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 356(a)(1))), respectively.
The term “qualifying infectious disease product” refers to an antibacterial or antifungal human drug that is intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections (section 505E(g) of the FD&C Act). It includes treatments for diseases caused by antibiotic- or antifungal-resistant pathogens (including new or emerging pathogens), or “qualifying pathogens” listed by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (and, by delegation, FDA) under section 505E(f) (section 505E(g) of the FD&C Act).
According to the statute, “the term `qualifying pathogen' means a pathogen identified and listed by the Secretary * * * that has the potential to pose a serious threat to public health, such as[:] (A) resistant [G]ram positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant
• The impact on the public health due to drug-resistant organisms in humans;
• The rate of growth of drug-resistant organisms in humans;
• The increase in resistance rates in humans; and
• The morbidity and mortality in humans.
We are holding this hearing to fulfill the statutory consultation requirement and to obtain public comment on the following issues related to establishing the list of qualifying pathogens described in section 505E(f) of the FD&C Act:
1. FDASIA requires FDA to “consider” the following factors in establishing and maintaining the list of qualifying pathogens:
• The impact on the public health due to drug-resistant organisms in humans;
• The rate of growth of drug-resistant organisms in humans;
• The increase in resistance rates in humans; and
• The morbidity and mortality in humans.
2. Aside from the considerations noted in question 1 (i.e., those required by section 505(E)(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act), are there any other factors FDA should consider when establishing and maintaining the list of qualifying pathogens? If so, how should these factors be applied to a pathogen to determine whether it should be included in the list?
3. Which specific pathogens do you believe should be listed as qualifying pathogens? Provide justification for your recommendations, including how you applied the considerations described in section 505E(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act, and any other factors that you considered, in recommending the pathogen for inclusion on the list of qualifying pathogens.
The Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) is announcing that the public hearing will be held in accordance with part 15 (21 CFR part 15). The hearing will be conducted by a presiding officer, who will be accompanied by FDA senior management from the Office of the Commissioner and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Under § 15.30(f), the hearing is informal and the rules of evidence do not apply. No participant may interrupt the presentation of another participant. Only the presiding officer and panel members may question any person during or at the conclusion of each presentation.
Public hearings under part 15 are subject to FDA's policy and procedures for electronic media coverage of FDA's public administrative proceedings (see 21 CFR part 10, subpart C). Under § 10.205, representatives of the electronic media may be permitted, subject to certain limitations, to videotape, film, or otherwise record FDA's public administrative proceedings, including presentations by participants.
To the extent that the conditions for the hearing, as described in this notice, conflict with any provisions set out in part 15, this notice acts as a waiver of those provisions as specified in § 15.30(h).
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Program Comment issued for streamlining Section 106 review for undertakings affecting post-1945 concrete and steel bridges.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued a
The Program Comment was issued by the ACHP on November 2, 2012.
Address all questions concerning the Program Comment to Carol Legard, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 803, Washington, DC 20004. Fax (202) 606-8522. You may submit electronic questions to:
Carol Legard, (202) 606-8522,
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. The ACHP has issued the regulations that set forth the process through which Federal agencies comply with these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800 (Section 106 regulations).
Under Section 800.14(e) of those regulations, agencies can request the ACHP to issue a “Program Comment” on a particular category of undertakings in lieu of conducting reviews of each individual undertaking under such category, as set forth in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7. An agency can meet its Section 106 responsibilities with regard to the effects of particular aspects of those undertakings by taking into account an applicable Program Comment that has been issued by the ACHP and following the steps set forth in that comment.
The ACHP has issued a Program Comment to relieve all federal agencies from the Section 106 requirement to consider the effects of undertakings on common bridges and culverts constructed of concrete or steel after 1945. The ACHP membership voted in favor of issuing the Program Comment via an unassembled vote that concluded on November 2, 2012.
According to the requirements for obtaining a Program Comment, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) formally requested the ACHP to comment on the effects of a category of undertakings in lieu of conducting individual reviews for effects to certain types of bridges commonly constructed in the United States since 1945. Bridges of the types covered in the Program Comment were constructed in vast numbers from plans that quickly became standardized around the middle of the 20th century. These bridges are generally undistinguished from an engineering or architectural perspective, are considered to have little value for preservation in place, and are rarely viable candidates for relocation. However, because they may meet or approach the age criteria for evaluation as historic properties, considerable time and resources are currently expended to address effects to them on a case-by-case basis under the Section 106 process. The Program Comment applies to effects of undertakings on certain common concrete and steel bridges lacking distinction, not previously listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and not located within or adjacent to historic districts. The Program Comment proposed by FHWA was received by the ACHP on August 6, 2012.
To develop the Program Comment, FHWA met with individuals from the ACHP staff, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. With the assistance of these individuals, FHWA prepared an initial draft of the proposed Program Comment which was then shared with key stakeholders and additional organizations and individuals with expertise in historic bridges and in the Section 106 review process. This outreach effort resulted in a number of revisions intended to address concerns raised about the applicability of the Program Comment, the ability of states to identify examples of common bridges that should be excluded from the Program Comment, and the types and range of bridges that would be exempted from Section 106 review. FHWA worked with the ACHP in developing the new draft, which was discussed at the ACHP Federal Agency Program Committee meeting on August 8, 2012.
Upon submitting its formal request to the ACHP, FHWA took additional steps to inform the public and stakeholders about the proposed Program Comment, including an email distribution, posting on the agency web site, and a notice published in the
In accordance with our regulations at 36 CFR 800.14(e), the ACHP is responsible for obtaining the views of State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers before reaching a decision on issuing a Program Comment. Although the Program Comment was drafted so that it does not apply to tribal lands, the ACHP transmitted the proposed Program Comment to Indian tribes and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers to ensure that their views were considered in its decision on whether to issue the program comment. The ACHP requested comments on the Program Comment, as submitted by FHWA, on September 7, 2012.
As a result of both FHWA's
The proposed Program Comment received strong support from the American Public Works Association (APWA), National Association of County Engineers (NACE), American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), the Commissioner of Highways for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the New York State County Highway Superintendents Association (NYSCHSA), and the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Comments from these organizations stressed that the Program Comment is a logical, common sense approach that will save taxpayers money and allow needed infrastructure improvements to be completed more efficiently. The President of the NYSCHSA stated that by excluding these common bridges from Section 106 review, taxpayers could save up to $78 million over a 10-year period.
Four respondents to the
Two commenters expressed confusion about how the identification of exceptional bridges can be completed by December 31, 2012, particularly where the main source of data is the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). Distrust for the accuracy of information in the NBI and the fact that a number of states lack recent historic bridge inventories were the reasons these parties were concerned about the ability of the FHWA Division in each state to identify especially important examples of the common bridge types within the tight timeframe provided in the review draft.
In response to these concerns, the Program Comment was revised to extend the timeframe for completing the list of exceptional bridges to March 31, 2013. It also encourages, but does not require, FHWA Divisions to complete the list by that date. If additional time is needed to complete the list, it will be granted. Also, FHWA Divisions may add to the list of exceptional bridges, as more information becomes available regarding the historic bridges in a state. The Program Comment also now clarifies that to complete the list of exceptional bridges, a statewide survey or context does not need to be developed where none exists. The list need not be exhaustive; the intent behind the list is to be able to exclude readily recognizable exceptional bridges from the Program Comment. Although the commenters are correct that this may not be sufficient in some states to identify all exceptionally significant bridges, we believe that the Program Comment establishes a good balance between protecting the most significant historic bridges of these common types and eliminating repetitive and redundant documentation and reviews that can be costly to the government and have limited value to the broader public.
One Federally Recognized Indian tribe and one Native Hawaiian Organization commented on the Program Comment. Both expressed concern that the Program Comment may be seen as a broad waiver of Section 106 review for projects affecting historic bridges, leading to the destruction of other types of sites as a result of construction. To address this concern, the Introduction (Section I) and Section III (Applicability) were revised to explicitly and clearly state that while the Program Comment relieves Federal agencies from the Section 106 requirement to consider the effects of undertakings on the bridge types identified in Section V, it is not a waiver from Section 106 requirements for the consideration of other historic properties that may be affected by a bridge rehabilitation or replacement project. It further clarifies that the Program Comment is not a waiver from applicable Federal requirements to consult with Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs) regarding undertakings that may affect historic properties to which a tribe or NHO ascribe traditional cultural and religious significance.
Three commenters proposed changes to the common bridge types covered by the Program Comment (Section V). One proposed that pre-stressed concrete should be included as a discrete bridge type and that all pre-stressed concrete bridges built prior to 1966 be excluded from the Program Comment. The ACHP declined to make this change as it would be inconsistent with the other bridge types in Section V, which are based on structure type (design) and material, and not just the material with which it is constructed. Other recommendations were incorporated into the final Program Comment including: Removing reinforced concrete rigid frames, metal rigid frames, and curved metal girders from the list of common types (they are, in fact, not as common as the other types); and adding culverts and reinforced concrete boxes among the common bridge types covered by the Program Comment.
Two commenters offered recommendations for improving the programmatic mitigation in Section VI. One recommended including specifics regarding the manner in which the FHWA will encourage the update of inventories. The other offered additional suggestions for mitigation. One additional mitigation measure was incorporated into the Program Comment based on these recommendations. Section VI now requires FHWA to complete and make available to the public a brief illustrated history of post-1945 highway bridge engineering and design to document for the general public the innovations and contributions of the bridges to transportation in the post-World War II era. FHWA is required to complete this illustrated history and documentation using Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards of at least one example of each common bridge type before December 31, 2013. A third programmatic mitigation measure was left unchanged: A commitment for FHWA to encourage State transportation agencies that have not recently done so to update inventories of historic bridges in their states. The ACHP agrees with commenters that updating and maintaining statewide historic bridge inventories and management plans for historic bridges is the best way to plan for the protection and preservation of the State's most significant bridges. However, requiring State transportation agencies to complete these inventories would place an unfair burden on states without the resources to do these studies, and we do not agree that such inventories are necessary to identify exceptional examples in a state, provided the state DOT and Federal Highway Administration consults with the SHPO and others in developing the list of exceptional bridges, as required.
The ACHP received comments on the FHWA proposed Program Comment from six SHPOs: Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin. Wisconsin and Nevada SHPOs support the Program Comment and offered minor suggestions for improving Section IV (Considerations) which were incorporated into the final document.
Four SHPO representatives expressed objections or strong reservations to the approach because of concerns that important post-1945 concrete and steel bridges would remain unidentified and unprotected in the absence of a comprehensive statewide historic bridge survey. As with some of the commenters on the
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) worked closely with FHWA to develop the Program Comment, and has expressed strong support for it.
Finally, Federal agencies may only use the Program Comment in states where the relevant FHWA Division has completed and filed a list of exceptional common bridges with the FHWA Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) in accordance with Section IV. While the ACHP does not intend to limit the usefulness of the Program Comment to federal agencies wishing to use it, we note that the effectiveness of the Program Comment hinges on the FHWA Divisions in each state taking the step to identify bridges that should be exempted from the Program Comment. We encourage Federal agencies other than FHWA wishing to use the Program Comment to contact the relevant FHWA Division office or the State Historic Preservation Office to find out the status of its efforts to complete the list required in Section IV. The FHWA FPO has agreed to post on FHWA's Web site (
The following is the text of the proposed Program Comment:
Every year, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds the rehabilitation and replacement of hundreds of bridges under the Federal-aid program administered across the U.S. by State departments of transportation (DOT) and the Federal Lands Highway program. Other Federal agencies are also involved with projects affecting bridges through Federal assistance, approvals, or permits. Many of the bridges affected by these programs are of common types constructed by State transportation agencies after 1945, using reinforced concrete or steel beams and designs that quickly became standardized. These common bridge types are generally undistinguished, and although some of them may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, when repair or replacement is needed, they are rarely viable candidates for either preservation in place or relocation. Yet, every federally funded or permitted undertaking affecting such a bridge requires review and consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), 16 U.S.C. 470f to assess whether the bridge is eligible for inclusion in the National Register and, if so, to resolve adverse effects to it. The regulations implementing Section 106, codified at 36 CFR part 800, describe the procedures Federal agencies must follow to meet this obligation.
Alternate compliance methods, provided by the Section 106 regulations, allow agencies to meet these Section 106 obligations but tailor the process to their mission and needs. Section 800.14(e) of the regulations provides that any agency may request a “Program Comment” from the ACHP in lieu of case-by-case review. The benefit of a Program Comment is that it allows a federal agency to comply with Section 106 in a single action for a class of undertakings rather than addressing each undertaking as a separate action. At FHWA's request, the ACHP has issued the following Program Comment in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.14(e) in order to waive, with limited exceptions, case-by-case Section 106 consideration of effects on common post-1945 bridges. This Program Comment is available for use by all federal agencies and State officials delegated the responsibility to comply with Section 106 for the particular undertakings by statute or a program alternative under 36 CFR § 800.14 (federal agencies). It relieves federal agencies from the need, under Section 106, to individually consider the effects of undertakings on the bridges described in Section V of this Program Comment, with the exceptions noted in Section IV.
It is important to note that this Program Comment is not a waiver from Section 106 review for undertakings that may affect common bridges or other historic properties as described in Section V. Neither is it a waiver from applicable federal requirements to consult with Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations (NHO) regarding undertakings that may affect historic properties to which a tribe or NHO ascribes traditional cultural and religious significance. Federal agency officials must still complete Section 106 review and consider effects of the undertaking on historic properties other than the common bridge itself. Such effects to other historic properties may be direct or indirect, and must be considered by the federal agency official whether or not the Program Comment is applicable to the subject bridge.
In October 2005, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program published “A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types.” That context revealed that a great many of the bridge structures built after 1935, and especially since 1946, are strictly utilitarian and lacking in distinctive engineering or architectural qualities. Increasing standardization associated with highway design as a result of growing federal funding and the evolving standards of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) both contributed to the uniformity of design in bridges of certain types.
Information about America's bridges, including their age and condition, is readily available in FHWA's National Bridge Inventory (NBI). The NBI is a collection of information (database) covering just under 600,000 of the nation's bridges located on public roads, including Interstate Highways, U.S. highways, State and county roads, as well as publicly accessible bridges on federal lands. It presents a State by State summary analysis of the number, location, and general condition of highway bridges within each State. This database contains technical and engineering information about hundreds of thousands of bridges in the United States, including year built, bridge type, condition and many other fields. Some 45,000 bridges in the NBI are rated as structurally deficient, meaning that portions of the bridge may be in poor condition. Approximately 61,680 are identified as functionally obsolete, meaning that the design of the bridge does not meet current guidelines for its use, such as lack of safety shoulders or the inability to handle certain traffic volume, speed, size, or weight. Bridges in these categories are frequent candidates for replacement. This Program Comment is intended to eliminate the administrative burden of considering the effects of replacement on these bridges on a case-by-case basis and make delivery of these critical projects more efficient in recognition of the very limited preservation value of the vast majority of common post-1945 bridges.
This Program Comment relieves federal agencies from the Section 106 requirement to consider the effects of undertakings on the bridge types identified in Section V of this Program Comment, except for those subject to the considerations noted in Section IV of this Program Comment.
Undertakings include those that involve applications from State transportation agencies or local governments for federal permits, approvals, or assistance that will result in alteration, replacement, or
The Program Comment applies to common bridges regardless of ownership, except for those located on tribal lands.
A federal agency is not required to use this Program Comment. Federal agencies that choose not to use this Program Comment must comply with Section 106 through the process in the Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR §§ 800.3 through 800.7, or 36 CFR § 800.8(c), or another existing program alternative under 36 CFR § 800.14. Any federal agency that chooses to use this Program Comment for an undertaking should notify consulting parties that it will use it with regard to the effects of the undertaking on the bridge types identified in Section V of this Program Comment.
Prior to utilizing this Program Comment for an undertaking that may affect a common bridge, a federal agency, based on the work of a qualified cultural resource specialist, must complete a review to determine if any of the considerations listed below apply to the bridge at issue. If the federal agency determines that the common bridge in question meets any of these considerations, the agency may not utilize this Program Comment with regard to that common bridge.
(A) The bridge is listed in or has previously been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or is located adjacent to or within a National Register listed or eligible historic district, including linear historic districts such as a parkway, historic road, or canal;
(B) The bridge in question is or includes spans of the following types: Arch bridges, truss bridges, bridges with movable spans, suspension bridges, cable-stayed bridges, or covered bridges; or
(C) The bridge was identified in a list created through the process detailed below as having exceptional significance for association with an event or individual, or being a very early or particularly important example of its type in a State or the nation, having distinctive engineering or architectural features that depart from standard designs, such as an aesthetic railing or balustrade, includes spans of exceptional length or complexity, or displaying other elements that were engineered to respond to a unique environmental context.
Before the Program Comment may be used for undertakings in a State, the relevant FHWA Division must first develop a list of bridges in that State that are of the types considered common bridges, but that also meet the considerations in IV.C above, and therefore fall outside the scope of this Program Comment. Each FHWA Division wishing to apply the provisions of this Program Comment must organize a meeting of the relevant SHPO, DOT, and other interested parties in order to develop the list of bridges that meet the criteria considerations in IV.C. The list should be finalized and submitted to the Federal Preservation Officer of FHWA by March 31, 2013. FHWA Divisions are not required to develop a statewide survey or context studies to support the development of such lists where none exist. The list is not intended to be exhaustive, but will be informed by input received at the meeting. The intent behind the list is to be able to exclude readily recognizable exceptional bridges from the Program Comment. Where States already have a current (within the last 5 years) Programmatic Agreement, inventory, or management plan for historic bridges that identifies common bridges meeting any of the listed considerations, the data included in those Programmatic Agreements, inventories, or management plans may suffice to create the list. States lacking up to date historic bridge inventories may subsequently identify additional bridges to include on the list of exceptional bridges excluded from the Program Comment based on information obtained in a field verification required in Section III of this Program Comment.
Based on the historic bridge context, the NBI, information developed in statewide bridge inventories across the United States, and consultation with the National Conference of SHPOs and other stakeholders, the following common bridge types are considered well-documented standardized designs that lack individual distinction.
The programmatic mitigation measures in this section resolve adverse effects that could result from the potential replacement of common bridges and provide appropriate documentation of those common bridges covered by this program comment. By completing the requirements of Section IV, federal agencies will ensure that this Program Comment is appropriately applied to individual undertakings affecting common bridges. The measures included in this Section, when completed by FHWA, will provide a long-term record of these common bridge types and information about the historic and technological significance of this period of innovation in transportation.
(A) If a suitable example from at least one State is not already included in the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) collection, one set of HAER documentation, including at least narrative history and photographs, for each bridge type in Section V shall be prepared and submitted by FHWA for acceptance by HAER before December 31, 2013. The FHWA will coordinate with HAER to determine which, if any, of these types are not yet represented in the HAER collection and will work with the FHWA Division offices and State DOTs to identify a candidate for each type not already represented.
(B) FHWA will complete a brief illustrated history of post-1945 highway bridge engineering and design to document for the general public the innovations and
(C) The FHWA will encourage State transportation agencies that have not done so within the last 5 years to update inventories of historic bridges in their States to better ensure that bridges meeting the considerations in Section IV above are identified and considered early in the Section 106 review process.
If not specifically addressed below, terms used within this Program Comment shall be defined consistent with the definitions provided in 36 CFR Part 800.
“
“
“
36 CFR 800.14(e).
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-day notice and request for comments; New Information Collection Request: 1670—NEW.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Infrastructure Information Collection Division (IICD), Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program will submit the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 15, 2013. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/IP/IICD, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Mail Stop 0602, Arlington,VA 20598-0602. Emailed requests should go to Joseph Maltby,
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Email: Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.
Congress created the PCII Program under the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002 for DHS to encourage voluntary information sharing by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and protected systems. IICD administers the PCII Program. The PCII Program is implemented by 6 CFR part 29, Procedures for Handling Critical Infrastructure Information; Final Rule (the Regulation), issued in 2006. PCII refers to critical infrastructure information not customarily in the public domain and related to the security of critical infrastructure or protected systems, which is voluntarily submitted to DHS for homeland security purposes and validated under the authority of the PCII Program Manager. The PCII Program provides a statutory exemption from release of information under the Freedom of Information Act and state and local sunshine laws, and prohibits the use of the information in civil litigation.
The PCII Program is responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulation's uniform procedures for the handling, use, dissemination, and safeguarding of PCII. In this capacity, the PCII Program oversees a community of stakeholders, including submitters of critical infrastructure information, authorized users of PCII and accredited Federal, state and local entities with homeland security duties. The PCII Program is required by its authorizing regulation to assist the PCII Officers in overseeing their own accredited PCII programs at the state and local level.
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-3350-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 28, 2012, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts resulting from Hurricane Sandy beginning on October 27, 2012, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Justo Hernández, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
All counties in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-3360-EM), dated October 30, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 30, 2012, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of New Hampshire resulting from Hurricane Sandy beginning on October 26, 2012, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin L. Hannes, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of New Hampshire have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
All counties in the State of New Hampshire for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Rhode Island (FEMA-3355-EM), dated October 29, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 29, 2012, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Rhode Island resulting from Hurricane Sandy beginning on October 26, 2012, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Rhode Island have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
All counties in the State of Rhode Island for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of New York (FEMA-3351-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 28, 2012, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of New York resulting from Hurricane Sandy beginning on October 27, 2012, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (“the Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the State of New York.
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that
The following areas of the State of New York have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
All counties in the State of New York for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Connecticut (FEMA-3353-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 28, 2012, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of Connecticut resulting from Hurricane Sandy beginning on October 27, 2012, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Albert Lewis, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Connecticut have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
All counties in the State of Connecticut for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-3354-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 28, 2012, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of New Jersey resulting from Hurricane Sandy beginning on October 26, 2012, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (“the Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the State of New Jersey.
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Elizabeth Turner, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of New Jersey have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
All counties in the State of New Jersey for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for State of New Jersey (FEMA-3354-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael J. Hall of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
This action terminates the appointment of Elizabeth Turner as Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the District of Columbia (FEMA-3352-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jack Schuback, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
This action terminates the appointment of Steven S. Ward as Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency disaster declaration for State of New York (FEMA-3351-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael F. Byrne, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
This action terminates the appointment of Philip E. Parr as Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Delaware (FEMA-3357-EM), dated October 29, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jack Schuback, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
This action terminates the appointment of Regis Leo Phelan as Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Connecticut (FEMA-4087-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 30, 2012, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Connecticut resulting from Hurricane Sandy beginning on October 27, 2012, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance, assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs).
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Albert Lewis, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Connecticut have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Fairfield, Middlesex, New Haven, and New London Counties and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and Mohegan Tribal Nation located within New London County for Individual Assistance.
Fairfield, Middlesex, New Haven, and New London Counties and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and Mohegan Tribal Nation located within New London County for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
All counties and Indian Tribes in the State of Connecticut are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Utah (FEMA-4088-DR), dated November 3, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 3, 2012, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Utah resulting from a severe storm and flooding on September 11, 2012, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gary R. Stanley, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Utah have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Washington County for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Utah are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4086-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Jersey is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 30, 2012.
Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Mercer, Morris, Passaic, Salem, Sussex, and Warren Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation of Dixie Services, Inc., as a commercial laboratory.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12, Dixie Services, Inc., 1706 First Street, Galena Park, TX 77547, has been accredited to
The accreditation of Dixie Services, Inc., as commercial laboratory became effective on July 12, 2012. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2015.
Christopher Mocella, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will meet on December 4, 2012, in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public.
COAC will meet on Tuesday, December 4, 2012, from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
If you have completed an online on-site registration and wish to cancel your registration, you may do so at
The meeting will be held at Ronald Reagan Building in the Horizon Ballroom, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229. All visitors to the Ronald Reagan Building must show a state-issued ID or Passport to proceed through the security checkpoint to be admitted to the building.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at 202-344-1661 as soon as possible.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below.
Comments must be submitted in writing no later than November 26, 2012, and must be identified by USCBP-2012-0041 and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
There will be three public comment periods held during the meeting on December 4, 2012. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP web page at the time of the meeting.
Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone 202-344-1440; facsimile 202-325-4290.
Notice of this meeting is given under the
The COAC will hear from the following subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations and formulate recommendations on how to proceed on those topics:
• The work of the Trade Facilitation Subcommittee: Recommendations and resolutions on CBP's Trade Transformation initiatives, recommendations on the role of the customs brokers in regard to the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEEs), and recommendations based on the results from the COAC Industry Survey regarding the expected benefits of the CEEs.
• The work of the Role of the Broker Subcommittee: Recommendations and resolutions on various aspects of CBP's effort to revise the role of the customs broker in the CBP regulations (19 CFR Part 111) which includes whether the initiative in the area of continuing education should be pursued, requirements for brokers to obtain
• The work of Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Strategic Communications Working Group: Presentation of a white paper and recommendation how CBP should
• The work of the One U.S. Government at the Border Subcommittee: Recommendation for addressing a One U.S. Government Approach to Trusted Trader Programs and provide the subcommittee term end report.
• The Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Subcommittee's work on providing CBP with guidance on new tools to be used in the port of entry to help identify counterfeit products, the distribution chain management and serialization pilot project, and modification to the CBP recordation database of federally registered trademarks, trade names and copyrights.
• The Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duties Subcommittee's term end report and a discussion on the impact of trade enforcement and trade intelligence initiatives.
• The Bond Subcommittee's work on proposed modifications to the CBP Form 5106 (Importer Identification Input Record), liquidated damages/mitigation guidelines, and the use of single transaction bonds (STBs) when additional security is merited. The Subcommittee will respond to the CBP Deputy Commissioner's request to look into the possibility of issuing bonds prior to the foreign departure of goods that are intended for importation into the United States.
• An update from CBP's Agriculture Programs and Trade Liaison on the July 2012 USDA/Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and CBP Joint Stakeholder Conference.
Prior to the COAC taking action on any of these topics of the eight above-mentioned subcommittees, working groups, and Agriculture Programs and Trade Liaison, members of the public will have an opportunity to provide comments orally or, for comments submitted electronically during the meeting, by reading the comments into the record.
The COAC will also receive term-end reports, updates and discuss the following Initiatives and Subcommittee topics that were discussed throughout the 12th Term meetings as set forth below:
• The National Strategy for Global Supply Chain Security as it relates to an effort to solicit, consolidate, and provide to DHS sector and stakeholder input on implementation of the National Strategy.
• The work of the Land Border Security Subcommittee: updates and observations on the Customs—the 21st Century Border Management Initiative and Beyond the Border initiatives.
• The Air Cargo Security Subcommittee's work on the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) pilot, and a discussion of the operational involvement of freight forwarders as well as the next steps in drafting a notice of proposed rulemaking.
• The Export Subcommittee's work on where it stands in identifying incentives for U.S. exporters to participate in Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism(C-TPAT)/Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) programs and a review of the subcommittee's scope and goals for the 13th Term COAC.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS and to Conduct Public Scoping Meeting.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gives notice to the public, agencies, and Indian tribes that the City and County of San Francisco's Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) as the Responsible Entity in accordance with 24 CFR 58.2, intends to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the HOPE SF Development at the Sunnydale and Velasco P