Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Justice Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC” or “Corporation”).
Interim guidance with request for public comment.
This interim guidance sets forth the general processes and factors to be used by the FDIC in developing and distributing the stress test scenarios for the annual stress tests required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 as implemented by the Annual Stress Test final rule (“Stress Test Rule”) published on October 15, 2012.
This interim guidance is effective November 20, 2012. Comments must be submitted on or before January 22, 2013.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
George French, Deputy Director, Policy, (202) 898-3929, Robert Burns, Associate Director, Mid-Tier Bank Branch, (202) 898-3905, or Ryan Sheller, Senior Large Financial Institutions Specialist, (202) 412-4861, Division of Risk Management and Supervision; Philip A. Shively, Chief, Economic Analysis Section, (202) 898-6790, Division of Insurance and Research; Mark G. Flanigan, Counsel, (202) 898-7426, Rachel Jones, Attorney, (202) 898-6858, or Grace Pyun, Attorney, (202) 898-3609, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.
Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 requires certain financial companies, including FDIC-insured state nonmember banks and FDIC-insured state-chartered savings associations with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion (“covered banks”), to conduct annual stress tests. The FDIC published in the
A key
This interim guidance is effective November 20, 2012 and applicable, to the extent practicable, to the annual stress test cycle beginning this year. As explained in the preamble, the Stress Test Rule was effective immediately upon publication because the stress testing framework represents a critical tool for supervision and is essential for the health of covered banks and the overall financial stability of the economy.
The FDIC solicits comment on all aspects of the interim guidance. Specifically, what challenges, if any, exist in applying this guidance generally or at particular banking organizations and are there any terms described by the interim guidance that require further clarification and how should they be defined?
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 appendix A.1), the FDIC has reviewed this interim guidance. The FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The FDIC has conducted a PRA analysis on all related reporting, recordkeeping and disclosure requirements in the Stress Test Rule and submitted them to OMB for review and approval. The request, which has been assigned OMB Control No. 3064-0187, is still pending. No new collection of information pursuant to the PRA is contained in this interim guidance.
The text of the interim policy statement is as follows.
Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 requires certain financial companies, including FDIC-insured state nonmember banks and FDIC-insured state-chartered savings associations with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion (“covered banks”), to conduct annual stress tests. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC” or “Corporation”) published in the
As defined by the Stress Test Rule, a stress test means “the process to assess the potential impact of scenarios on the consolidated earnings, losses, and capital of a covered bank over the planning horizon, taking into account the current condition of the covered bank and the covered bank's risks, exposures, strategies, and activities.”
Under the Stress Test Rule, each covered bank is required to conduct an annual stress test using its financial data as of September 30th of each year, unless the FDIC requires a different “as of” date for any or all categories of financial data.
Scenarios are those sets of conditions that affect the U.S. economy or the financial condition of a covered bank that the Corporation annually determines are appropriate for use in the stress tests, including, but not limited to, baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios.
Each scenario includes the values of the variables specified for each quarter over the stress test horizon. The FDIC expects that covered banks may not need to use all of the variables provided and may need to estimate relationships to identify other variables, such as those reflecting local economic conditions, from the values the FDIC provides. The FDIC will review the appropriateness of estimation processes and resulting estimates, or other modifications of variables, through its ongoing supervisory processes.
The variables specified for each scenario generally address economic activity, asset prices, and other measures of financial market conditions for the United States and key foreign countries. Variables that describe economic activity likely include, but are not be limited to, the growth rate of gross domestic product, the unemployment rate, and the inflation rate. The FDIC anticipates that the path of the unemployment rate in particular will be a key variable indicating the severity of economic stress, as this variable provides a simple and widely noted gauge of the state of the U.S. economy. This point is discussed further in this statement in connection with severely adverse scenarios.
Other variables may represent asset prices and financial market conditions, including interest rates. The FDIC expects to specify scenarios using a standard core set of variables, although variables may be added or deleted as the U.S. and global economic environment evolves. The FDIC will attempt to minimize additions, redefinitions, or re-specifications of the stress test variables from year to year, as the use of such new or different variables may potentially require covered banks to modify their testing systems.
The scenarios provided by the FDIC reflect at least three sets of economic and financial conditions, described in the rule as baseline, adverse, and severely adverse. The baseline broadly corresponds to the set of conditions expected to prevail over the term of the stress tests. The adverse and severely adverse scenarios introduce hypothetical stress conditions intended to test the safety and soundness of covered banks as well as their capital planning processes. The aim is to assess the covered banks' ability to identify and measure the risks they face under adverse conditions, and to ensure that appropriate amounts of capital exist to support those risks. The FDIC will evaluate both the adequacy of the projections and the processes used in the stress test. The FDIC expects covered banks to be able to maintain ready access to funding, continue operations, meet obligations to creditors and counterparties, and continue to serve as credit intermediaries under conditions that are significantly more adverse than expected.
The
The
The
• The 1973-75 recession, during which the unemployment rate increased 4.1 percentage points, from 4.9 percent in third quarter 1973 to 9.0 percent in second quarter 1975 (one quarter after the recession ended).
• The back-to-back recessions in 1980 and 1981-82, during which the unemployment rate increased 4.7 percentage points, from 6.1 percent in fourth quarter 1979 to 10.8 percent in fourth quarter 1982 (the last quarter of the recession).
• The 2007-09 recession, during which the unemployment rate increased 5.3 percentage points, from 4.7 percent in third quarter 2007 to 10.0 percent in fourth quarter 2009 (two quarters after the recession ended).
Other variables under the adverse and severely adverse scenarios would be expected to follow paths consistent with the depth and duration of previous recessions and with models of macroeconomic activity. The severely adverse scenario also may reflect other risks that are especially salient and that might not be captured by past recessions, including elevated levels of systemic risk.
The scenarios distributed by the FDIC for the stress tests cover at least nine quarters. In addition, the FDIC will generally publish scenarios that cover one year beyond the planning horizon of the stress test, to allow for the estimation of loan losses for the year following the stress planning horizon; this additional specification allows covered banks to determine adequate levels of loan loss reserves.
The FDIC believes that as a general matter all covered banks should use the same set of scenarios and planning horizon so that the FDIC can better compare results across institutions. To that end, the FDIC intends to provide one set of scenarios for use by all covered banks. However, the FDIC believes there may be circumstances that would warrant the use of different or additional scenarios or a planning horizon of more than nine quarters. Thus, under the Stress Test Rule, the FDIC reserves the authority to require a covered bank to use different or additional scenarios and/or planning horizons the Corporation may deem appropriate.
In addition to the minimum three scenarios, the FDIC may require a covered bank with significant trading activities to include factors related to trading and counterparty risk in its stress test. Typically, these factors might include additional shocks to specific market prices, interest rates, rate spreads, or other key market variables consistent with historical or hypothetical adverse market events.
As one part of the process of developing scenarios, the FDIC will gather information from outside entities and develop themes for the stress test scenarios, including the identification of potentially material vulnerabilities or salient risks to the financial system, and consider potential paths for individual variables. The outside entities may include academic experts, staffs of international organizations, foreign supervisors, financial institutions that regularly provide forecasts, and other private sector risk analysts that regularly conduct stress tests based on U.S. and global economic and financial scenarios. The FDIC will use the information gathered in this manner to inform its consideration of potential risks and scenarios.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”), and the FDIC (collectively, the “Agencies”) expect to consult closely to develop scenarios for stress testing. Absent specific supervisory concerns, the FDIC anticipates that the annual stress test scenarios distributed by the FDIC will be the same as or nearly identical to the scenarios developed by the Board for the supervisory stress tests conducted by the Board under Section 165(i)(1). This would mean the same economic and financial variables following the same paths as used in the scenarios for the Board's supervisory stress tests.
Although the Agencies generally expect to consult closely on scenario development, they may have different views of risks that should be reflected in the stress test scenarios used by covered banks for the annual stress test. The FDIC may distribute scenarios to covered banks that differ in certain respects from those distributed by the OCC and the Board if necessary to better reflect specific FDIC concerns. The FDIC expects such situations to be extremely rare, however, and anticipates making every effort to avoid differences in the scenarios required by each agency.
The FDIC anticipates that the stress test scenarios will be revised annually as appropriate to ensure that each scenario remains relevant under prevailing economic and industry conditions. These yearly revisions will enable the scenarios to capture evolving risks and vulnerabilities. The need to ensure that scenarios do not become outdated because of economic and financial developments makes a lengthy process of review and comment concerning scenarios prior to distribution each year impractical. However, the process of consultation with the Board and the OCC, as well as the ongoing interaction of FDIC staff with public and private sector experts to obtain views on salient risks and to obtain suggestions for the behavior of key economic variables, should ensure that the stress conditions reflected in the scenarios are well suited to their purpose.
The scenario development process culminates with the distribution of the scenarios to all covered banks no later than November 15th of each year. The scenario descriptions provided to covered banks will include values for economic and financial variables depicting the paths those variables follow under the scenarios. The FDIC believes that distribution of the scenarios no later than November 15th aligns with similar processes at the OCC and the Board.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters with certain Generator Control Units (GCU) installed. This AD requires replacing the GCUs. This AD was prompted by reports of internal short circuits in certain GCUs. These actions are intended to prevent a short circuit, which could result in a loss of electrical generating power, loss of systems required for continued safe flight and landing, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective December 26, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052, telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323, fax (972) 641-3775, or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5114; email
On May 22, 2012, at 77 FR 30230, the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2011-0149R1, dated September 30, 2011 (AD 2011-0149R1), to correct an unsafe condition for the Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters. EASA advises that during an acceptance test procedure of a GCU, a short circuit caused by a manufacturing discrepancy occurred within the unit. According to EASA, all P/N 51530-021EI “no MOD,” “MOD A,” and “MOD B” GCUs are potentially affected by this discrepancy. To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD No. 2011-0149, dated August 19, 2011, to identify and replace each affected GCU with an airworthy GCU. Since issuing that AD, ECD demonstrated that helicopters modified in accordance with ECD Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB BK117 C-2-24A-008, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2011, have a much lower risk of losing electrical generating power from a faulty generator control unit. EASA then revised AD No. 2011-0149 and issued AD 2011-0149R1 to allow an extended compliance time for helicopters modified in accordance with the ECD ASB.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (77 FR 30230, May 22, 2012).
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing 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 helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The EASA AD allows a compliance time of 1,500 flight hours for helicopters previously modified by ECD ASB MBB BK117 C-2-24A-008 Revision 1, while this AD requires compliance within the next 300 hours TIS or 6 months, whichever occurs first, for all affected helicopters.
ECD has issued ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-24A-010 Revision 2, dated September 14, 2011, which specifies removing any GCU with P/N 51530-021EI with no modification (MOD), MOD A, or MOD B, and replacing it with a GCU P/N 51530-021EI MOD C or later MOD. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2011-0149R1 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
We estimate that this AD will affect 104 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Replacing a GCU with an airworthy GCU will require about 2 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per hour. Required parts will cost $7,130, for a total cost per helicopter of $7,300.
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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopters with a generator control unit (GCU), part number (P/N) 51530-021EI with no modification (MOD), MOD A, or MOD B installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as an internal short circuit in certain GCUs. This condition could result in loss of electrical generating power, resulting in the loss of systems required for continued safe flight and landing, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective December 26, 2012.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within the next 300 hours time-in-service or 6 months, whichever occurs first, replace all GCUs with no MOD, MOD A, or MOD B with an airworthy GCU.
(2) Do not install a GCU P/N 51530-021-EI with no MOD, MOD A, or MOD B on any helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5114; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117 C-2-24A-010 Revision 2, dated September 14, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052, telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323, fax (972) 641-3775, or at
(3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency AD No. 2011-0149R1, dated September 30, 2011.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2436: DC Generator Control Unit.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, and EC135 T2+ helicopters. This is the
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2012 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD No. 2012-10-53, issued on May 18, 2012, which contained the requirements of this AD.
We must receive comments on this AD by January 22, 2013.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
On May 15, 2012, we issued Emergency AD 2012-10-51 for the ECD Model EC135 series helicopters to detect a crack on the MRH shaft flange. Emergency AD 2012-10-51 required a pilot check of the lower MRH shaft flange for a crack or deformed blade attachment bolt safety pins before the first flight of each day, inspecting the upper and lower MRH shaft flanges for a crack within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), and replacing the MRH shaft if there is a crack.
After we issued Emergency AD 2012-10-51, the European Aviation Safety
When we issued superseding Emergency AD 2012-10-53, we included additional part-numbered MRH shafts that should have been included in EAD 2012-10-51, changed the daily checks to recurring checks at intervals not to exceed 6 hours TIS, added a 10 hour-TIS recurring inspection on MRH shafts with 400 or more hours TIS, and removed the check of the blade attachment bolt safety pins for deformation.
This is the
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing 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 helicopters of these same type designs.
Eurocopter has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin EC135-62A-029, Revision 2, dated May 17, 2012 (EC135-62A-029), which describes procedures for conducting a repetitive check of the visible area of the upper and lower MRH shaft flanges and a repetitive inspection of the area of the blade bolts lower MRH shaft flange.
This AD supersedes Emergency AD 2012-10-51 and requires the following:
• Before further flight, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 hours TIS, checking the lower MRH shaft flange and the visible area of the upper MRH shaft flange for a crack. An owner/operator (pilot) may perform this required visual check and must enter compliance with the applicable paragraph of this AD into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform this check because it involves only looking at the visible area of the MRH shaft flanges and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This check is an exception to our standard maintenance regulations.
• For an MRH shaft with 400 or more hours TIS, within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS, removing the rotor-hub cap; inspecting the upper and lower hub-shaft flanges for a crack; removing the blade attachment bolt safety pins, nut, and washer; and inspecting the lower hub-shaft flange bolt attachment areas for a crack.
• If there is a crack, replacing the MRH shaft.
The EASA AD identifies ECD Alert Service Bulletin EC135-62A-029, Revision 1, dated May 16, 2012. This AD references Revision 2. The EASA AD requires you to report the findings and sending any cracked MRH to ECD, and this AD does not. The EASA AD requires the initial check within 3 days, while this AD requires the check before further flight.
We consider this AD to be an interim action. Eurocopter is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
We estimate that this AD will affect 244 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate inspecting the MRH shaft flanges will require 2.5 hours at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, for a total cost per helicopter of $212 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $51,850 per inspection cycle. Replacing an MRH shaft will require about8 hours at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, and required parts will cost $55,715, for a total cost per helicopter of $56,395.
Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished before further flight.
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
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 authoritybecause it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, and EC135 T2+ helicopters, with a main rotor hub (MRH) shaft, part number (P/N) L623M1006101, L623M1206101, L623M1006102, L623M1206102, L623M1006103, or L623M1206103 installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the MRH shaft flange, which could result in failure of the MRH shaft and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2012 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD No. 2012-10-53, issued on May 18, 2012, which contained the requirements of this AD.
This AD supersedes Emergency AD No. 2012-10-51, dated May 15, 2012.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time.
(1) Before further flight, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 hours time-in-service (TIS), check the MRH shaft lower flange and the visible area of the MRH shaft upper flange for a crack. Figures 1 and 2 to Paragraph (f)(1) of this AD are examples of cracks that have been discovered in the MRH shaft lower flange. The actions required by this paragraph may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate, and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(2) For MRH shafts with 400 or more hours TIS, within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS:
(i) Remove rotor-hub cap.
(ii) Clean the upper and lower MRH shaft flange as depicted in Figure 3 to Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD and visually inspect for a crack.
(iii) Remove the safety pins and nut from each blade bolt and the washers from the lower MRH shaft flange.
(iv) Clean the blade bolt attachment area.
(v) Using a 10X or higher power magnification, inspect all lower MRH shaft flange blade bolt attachment areas for a crack as shown in Figure 4 to Paragraph (f)(2)(v) of this AD.
(3) If there is a crack in the upper or lower MRH shaft flange, before further flight, replace the MRH shaft. Replacing the MRH shaft with an MRH shaft having a part number listed in the applicability of this AD does not constitute terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin EC135-62A-029, Revision 2, dated May 17, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency AD No. 2012-0085-E, dated May 17, 2012.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor Head.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the LA 302 (Kerner) swing span bridge across the Barataria Bayou, mile 35.7, at Lafitte, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to allow a movie production crew to safely film at the bridge site. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation for 12 hours on two separate nights.
This deviation is effective from 6 p.m. on November 28 through 6 a.m. November 30, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0994 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Kay Wade, Bridge Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the swing span bridge across the Barataria Bayou at mile 35.7 in Lafitte, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The vertical clearance of the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position is 7.2 feet above Mean High Water, elevation 0.8 feet and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position. Vessels will not be allowed to pass under the bridge during the closure.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the bridge opens on signal for the passage of vessels. This deviation allows the swing span of the bridge to remain closed to navigation from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. on the evenings of Wednesday, November 28, 2012 and Thursday, November 29, 2012.
The closure is necessary in order to safely allow movie production crews to film at the bridge site. Notices will be published in the Eighth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and will be broadcast via the Coast Guard Broadcast Notice to Mariners System.
Navigation on the waterway consists of commercial and recreational fishing vessels, oil industry supply boats, crew boats, tug boats and standard barges. No alternate routes are available for the passage of vessels; however, the closure was coordinated with waterway interests who have indicated that they will be able to adjust their operations around the proposed schedule.
The bridge will be able to open in the event of an emergency.
Due to prior experience and coordination with waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on vessels that use the waterway.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Murray Morgan Bridge, also known as the South 11th Street Bridge, across the Thea Foss Waterway, mile 0.6, previously known as City Waterway, at Tacoma, WA. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operating schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is needed. This test deviation will modify the existing regulation and add an advance notification requirement for obtaining bridge openings during designated times. The Coast Guard has also published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) under docket number USCG-2012-0911 to which comments may be posted
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on January 1, 2013 through 8 a.m. June 15, 2013. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before [Insert date 45 days after date of publication in the
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-0911 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth District; telephone 206-220-7282 email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0911), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under
The Coast Guard, at the request of the City of Tacoma, proposes to change the regulation which governs the operating schedule of the Murray Morgan Bridge. This temporary deviation will test three separate changes requested by the City of Tacoma.
The first change requires that for bridge openings needed between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., notification be made no later than 8 p.m. prior to the desired opening. This differs from the existing regulation in that presently the bridge is required to open at all times (except during authorized closure periods) provided two hours advance notice is given. This deviation to the regulation which adds the requirement of notification by 8 p.m. for openings between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. is being tested because openings between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. are extremely rare. Over an 18 month period there were only 6 bridge openings requested between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. which averages one bridge opening request per three month period. One of the unique features of the Murray Morgan Bridge is its height above the waterway providing 60 feet of clearance at mean high water (MHW) in the closed position. Because of this vertical clearance the overwhelming majority of vessels which transit this waterway do not require a bridge opening. The majority of bridge openings are for locally moored and operated recreational sailboats with mast heights over 60 feet. Almost all of these vessels are moored at marinas in very close proximity of the bridge.
The second change being tested in this deviation is removing the authorized bridge closure periods in the morning and afternoon. The current regulation states that the draw need not be opened from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, for vessels of less than 1,000 gross tons. This test deviation requires the draw to open at all times with proper advance notification. The morning and afternoon authorized closures of the bridge outlined in the existing regulation were put into place when the bridge was part of SR 509, a continuous route from Northeast Tacoma to downtown, and traffic volumes were approximately 15,000 vehicles per day. In 1997 a new SR 509 was constructed approximately 0.7 miles south of the bridge and is now used as the main traffic corridor. After
The third change being tested in this deviation is principally administrative and changes the contact information for emergency bridge openings. The existing regulation states “In emergencies, openings shall be made as soon as possible upon notification to the Washington State Department of Transportation.” The change being tested in this deviation requires notification for emergency opening to be made to the City of Tacoma. The reason for this change is because Washington State turned over ownership and responsibility of the bridge to the City of Tacoma on January 6, 1998.
Under this temporary deviation the bridge will operate as follows. The draw of the Murray Morgan Bridge, also known as the South 11th Street Bridge, across Thea Foss Waterway, previously known as City Waterway, mile 0.6, at Tacoma, shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given. However, to obtain a bridge opening between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. notification must be made to the City of Tacoma by 8 p.m. In emergencies, openings shall be made as soon as possible upon notification to the City of Tacoma. The Murray Morgan Bridge is a vertical lift bridge which provides a vertical clearance of 60 feet above mean high water. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge at any time.
The Coast Guard has issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) under docket number USCG-2012-0911 to receive comments on these changes. Comments can be submitted for this deviation or for the NPRM by following procedures outlined in the SUBMITTING COMMENTS section above.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Company swing span bridge across Bayou Boeuf, mile 10.2, at Amelia, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to complete scheduled repairs necessitated by a bridge allision. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for sixteen consecutive hours.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. through 11 p.m. on Thursday, December 6, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0979 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Jim Wetherington, Bridge Branch Office, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email
The BNSF Railway Company has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the swing span railroad bridge across Bayou Boeuf, mile 10.2, at Amelia, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. The bridge provides no vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the bridge currently opens on signal for the passage of vessels. This deviation allows the vertical lift span of the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. through 11 p.m. on Thursday, December 6, 2012.
The closure is necessary in order to change out a shaft and reducer gear damaged during a bridge allision earlier this year. Notices will be published in the Eighth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and will be broadcast via the Coast Guard Broadcast Notice to Mariners System.
Navigation at the site of the bridge consists mainly of tows with barges and some recreational pleasure craft. Due to prior experience, as well as coordination with waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. An alternate route is available by using the GIWW, Morgan City to Port Allen Alternate Route.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
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
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
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 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2953.
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2012 commercial summer flounder quota to the State of Rhode Island. NMFS is adjusting the quotas and announcing the revised commercial quota for each state involved.
Effective November 19, 2012, through December 31, 2012.
Carly Bari, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9224.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are in 50 CFR part 648, and require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.100.
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, which was published on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for summer flounder quota to be transferred from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) to evaluate requests for quota transfers or combinations.
North Carolina has agreed to transfer 13,925 lb (6,316 kg) of its 2012 commercial quota to Rhode Island. This transfer was prompted by summer flounder landings of one North Carolina vessels that was granted safe harbor in Rhode Island due to Hurricane Sandy, on October 30, 2012, thereby requiring a quota transfer to account for an increase in Rhode Island's landings that would have otherwise accrued against the North Carolina quota. The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) have been met. The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2012 are: North Carolina, 1,589,325 lb (720,955 kg); and Rhode Island, 2,010,325 lb (911,868 kg).
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature, specifically sidestick controllers designed to be operated with only one hand. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before January 4, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2012-1236] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Todd Martin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1178; facsimile 425-227-1232.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with pressurized cabins, and they share an identical supplier base and significant common design elements. The fuselages are aluminum alloy material, blended double-bubble fuselages, sized for nominal five-abreast seating. Each airplane's powerplant includes two under-wing Pratt and Whitney PW1524G ultra-high bypass, geared turbofan engines. The flight controls are fly-by-wire flight with two passive/uncoupled sidesticks. Avionics include five landscape primary cockpit displays. The dimension of the aircraft encompasses a wingspan of 115 feet; height of 37.75 feet; and length of 114.75 feet for the Model BD-500-1A10 and length of 127 feet for the Model BD-500-1A11. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff thrust is 21,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 23,300 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11. The range is 5,463 kilometres for both model airplanes. The maximum operating altitude is 41,000 feet for both model airplanes.
Bombardier Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes will be equipped with a sidestick controller instead of a conventional control column and wheel. This kind of controller is designed for only one-hand operation.
The requirement of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR 25.397(c)), which defines limit pilot forces and torques for conventional wheel or stick controls, is not adequate for a sidestick controller. A special condition is necessary to specify the appropriate loading conditions for this kind of controller.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: A sidestick controller instead of a conventional control column and wheel. This kind of controller is designed for one-hand operation.
The Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes are equipped with a sidestick controller instead of a conventional wheel or control stick. This kind of controller is designed to be operated using only one hand. The requirement of 14 CFR 25.397(c), which defines limit pilot forces and torques for conventional wheel or stick controls, is not adequate for a sidestick controller, because pilot forces are applied to sidestick controllers with only the wrist, not arms. A special condition is necessary to specify the appropriate loading conditions for a sidestick controller. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. Should Bombardier Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes by Bombardier Aerospace:
In lieu of the pilot forces specified in § 25.397(c), for the Bombardier Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes equipped with sidestick controls designed for forces to be applied by one wrist and not arms, the limit pilot forces are as follows:
1. For all components between and including the handle and its control stops.
2. For all other components of the sidestick control assembly, excluding the internal components of the electrical sensor assemblies, to avoid damage as a result of an in-flight jam.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with pitch and roll limiting functions, specifically an electronic flight control system which contains fly-by-wire control laws, including envelope protections. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before January 4, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-1211 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2011; facsimile 425-227-1149.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for their new Model EMB-550 airplane. The Model EMB-550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The aircraft has a conventional configuration with a low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB-550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500-E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff. The primary flight controls consist of hydraulically powered fly-by-wire elevators, aileron and rudder, controlled by the pilot or copilot sidestick.
The airworthiness standards in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 do not specifically relate to flight characteristics associated with fixed attitude limits. Embraer S.A. will implement pitch and roll attitude protection functions through the normal modes of the electronic flight control system that will provide speed stability for high and low pitch angles. These functions also provide strong spiral stability for roll angles at high bank angles. In addition, bank angle limiting is introduced at speeds greater than V
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB-550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-127 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB-550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model EMB-550 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Model EMB-550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: An electronic flight control system which contains fly-by-wire control laws, including envelope protections, which were not envisioned when part 25 was written.
We expect that high thrust-to-weight ratios will provide the most critical cases for the positive pitch limit. A margin in pitch control must be available to enable speed control in maneuvers such as climb after takeoff and balked landing climb. The pitch limit must not impede likely maneuvering made necessary by collision avoidance efforts. A negative pitch limit must similarly not interfere with collision avoidance capability or with attaining and maintaining speeds near V
Spiral stability must not restrict attaining roll angles up to 65 degrees (i.e., an approximately 2.4
These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model EMB-550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplanes.In addition to § 25.143, the following requirements apply:
1. Flight Envelope Protection: Pitch and Roll Limiting Functions.
a. The pitch limiting function must not impede normal maneuvering for pitch angles up to the maximum required for normal maneuvering, including a normal all-engines operating takeoff, plus a suitable margin to allow for satisfactory speed control.
b. The pitch and roll limiting functions must not restrict or prevent attaining pitch attitudes necessary for emergency maneuvering or roll angles up to 66 degrees with flaps up, or 60 degrees with flaps down. Spiral stability, which is introduced above 33 degrees roll angle, must not require excessive pilot strength to achieve these roll angles. Other protections, which further limit the roll capability under certain extreme angle of attack or attitude or high speed conditions, are acceptable, as long as they allow at least 45 degrees of roll capability.
c. A lower limit of roll is acceptable beyond the overspeed warning if it is possible to recover the aircraft to the normal flight envelope without undue difficulty ordelay.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature, specifically sidestick controllers designed to be operated with only one hand. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before January 4, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2012-1216] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Todd Martin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1178; facsimile 425-227-1149.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for their new Model EMB-550 airplane. The Model EMB-550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The aircraft has a conventional configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB-550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500-E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff. The primary flight controls consist of hydraulically powered fly-by-wire elevators, ailerons, and rudder, controlled by the pilot or copilot sidestick.
Current regulations reference pilot effort loads for the cockpit pitch and roll controls that are based on a two-handed effort. The cockpit roll and pitch controls for the Model EMB-550 airplane are designed for one-handed operation.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB-550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-127 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations 14 CFR part 25 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB-550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model EMB-550 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Model EMB-550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplane is equipped with a sidestick controller instead of a conventional wheel or control stick. This kind of controller is designed to be operated using only one hand. The requirement of 14 CFR 25.397(c), which defines limit pilot forces and torques for conventional wheel or stick controls, is not appropriate for a sidestick controller. Therefore, a special condition is necessary to specify the appropriate loading conditions for this kind of controller.
The Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplane is equipped with a sidestick controller instead of a conventional wheel or control stick. This kind of controller is designed to be operated using only one hand. The requirement of 14 CFR 25.397(c), which defines limit pilot forces and torques for conventional wheel or stick controls, is not appropriate for a sidestick controller, because pilot forces are applied to sidestick controllers with only the wrist, not arms. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model EMB-550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the FAA proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplanes.
1. Limit Pilot Forces for Sidestick Control.
In lieu of the pilot forces specified in § 25.397(c):
(a) The limit pilot forces are:
(b) For all other components of the sidestick control assembly, excluding the internal components of the electrical sensor assemblies, to avoid damage as a result of an in-flight jam.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature, specifically an electronic flight control system which contains fly-by-wire control laws, including envelope protections, for the overspeed protection and roll limiting function. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before January 4, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-1215 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2011; facsimile 425-227-1149.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for their new Model EMB-550 airplane. The Model EMB-550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The aircraft has a conventional configuration with a low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB-550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500-E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff. The primary flight controls consist of hydraulically powered fly-by-wire elevators, aileron and rudder, controlled by the pilot or copilot sidestick.
The longitudinal control law design of the Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplane incorporates an overspeed protection system in the normal mode. This mode prevents the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding a speed approximately equivalent to V
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB-550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-127 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB-550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model EMB-550 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Model EMB-550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: An electronic flight control system which contains fly-by-wire control laws, including envelope protections, for the overspeed protection and roll limiting function. Current part 25 requirements do not contain appropriate standards for high speed protection systems.
As further discussed previously, a special condition is necessary in addition to the requirements of § 25.143 for the operation of the high speed protection. The general intent is that the overspeed protection does not impede normal maneuvering and speed control and that the overspeed protection does not restrict or prevent emergency maneuvering. Therefore, these proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model EMB-550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplanes.
1. In addition to § 25.143, the following requirement applies: Operation of the high speed limiter during all routine and descent procedure flight must not impede normal attainment of speeds up to overspeed warning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Embraer S.A. Model
Send your comments on or before January 4, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-1218 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111 Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2011; facsimile 425-227-1149.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for their new Model EMB-550 airplane. The Model EMB-550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The aircraft has a conventional configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB-550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500-E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff. The primary flight controls consist of hydraulically powered fly-by-wire elevators, aileron and rudder, controlled by the pilot or copilot sidestick.
The Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplane has a flight control design feature within the normal operational envelope in which sidestick deflection in the roll axis commands roll rate. As a result, the stick force in the roll axis will be zero (neutral stability) during the straight, steady sideslip flight maneuver required by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.177(c) and will not be “substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip” as required by the rule.
The longitudinal flight control laws for the Model EMB-550 airplane provide neutral static stability within the normal operational envelope; therefore, the airplane design does not comply with the static longitudinal stability requirements of §§ 25.171, 25.173, and 25.175.
Static longitudinal stability provides awareness to the flightcrew of a low energy state (i.e., low speed and thrust at low altitude). Recovery from a low energy state may become hazardous when associated with a low altitude and performance-limiting conditions. These low energy situations must therefore be avoided, and pilots must be given adequate cues when approaching such situations.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB-550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-127 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB-550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model EMB-550 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Model EMB-550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
(1)
Positive static directional stability is the tendency to recover from a skid with the rudder free. Positive static lateral
• Provide additional cues of inadvertent sideslips and skids through control force changes,
• Ensure that short periods of unattended operation do not result in any significant changes in yaw or bank angle,
• Provide predictable roll and yaw response, and
• Provide an acceptable level of pilot attention and workload to attain and maintain a coordinated turn.
The Flight Test Harmonization Working Group recommended a rule and advisory material change for § 25.177, Static lateral-directional stability, which was adopted at Amendment 25-135 (76 FR 74654, December 1, 2011), effective January 30, 2012. (This amendment is not in the Model EMB-550 certification basis.) That harmonized text formed the basis for these special conditions.
(2)
• Speed change cues are provided to the pilot through increased and decreased forces on the controller.
• Short periods of unattended control of the airplane do not result in significant changes in attitude, airspeed or load factor.
• A predictable pitch response is provided to the pilot.
• An acceptable level of pilot attention (workload) to attain and maintain trim speed and altitude is provided to the pilot.
• Longitudinal stability provides gust stability.
The pitch control movement of the sidestick on the Model EMB-550 airplane is designed to be a normal load factor or
As a result of neutral static stability, the Model EMB-550 airplane does not meet the 14 CFR part 25 requirements for static longitudinal stability.
(3)
In the absence of positive lateral stability, the curve of lateral control surface deflections against sideslip angle should be in a conventional sense, and reasonably in harmony with rudder deflection during steady heading sideslip maneuvers.
Since conventional relationships between stick forces and control surface displacements do not apply to the “load factor command” flight control system on the Model EMB-550 airplane, longitudinal stability characteristics should be evaluated by assessing the airplane handling qualities during simulator and flight test maneuvers appropriate to operation of the airplane. This may be accomplished by using the Handling Qualities Rating Method presented in Appendix 7 of Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7B,
• Adequate speed control without creating excessive pilot workload,
• Acceptable high and low speed protection, and
• Providing adequate cues to the pilot of significant speed excursions beyond V
The airplane should provide adequate awareness cues to the pilot of a low energy (i.e., a low speed, low thrust, or low height) state to ensure that the airplane retains sufficient energy to recover when flight control laws provide neutral longitudinal stability significantly below the normal operating speeds. This may be accomplished as follows:
• Adequate low speed/low thrust cues at low altitude may be provided by a strong positive static stability force gradient (1 pound per 6 knots applied through the sidestick), or
• The low energy awareness may be provided by an appropriate warning with the following characteristics:
○ It should be unique, unambiguous, and unmistakable.
○ It should be active at appropriate altitudes and in appropriate configurations (e.g., at low altitude, in the approach and landing configurations).
○ It should be sufficiently timely to allow recovery to a stabilized flight condition inside the normal flight envelope while maintaining the desired flight path and without entering the flight controls angle-of-attack protection mode.
○ It should not be triggered during normal operation, including operation in moderate turbulence for recommended maneuvers at recommended speeds.
○ The pilot should only be able to cancel it by achieving a higher energy state.
○ An adequate hierarchy should exist among the warnings so that the pilot is not confused and led to take inappropriate recovery action if multiple warnings occur.
Simulators and flight test should evaluate global energy awareness and ensure that low energy cues are not a nuisance in all take-off and landing altitude ranges for which certification is requested. These evaluations should include all relevant combinations of weight, center of gravity position, configuration, airbrakes position, and available thrust, including reduced and derated take-off thrust operations and engine failure cases. A sufficient number of tests should be conducted to assess the level of energy awareness and the effects of energy management errors. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model EMB-550 airplane. Should Embraer
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Model EMB-550 airplanes.
1. Electronic Flight Control System: Lateral-Directional and Longitudinal Stability and Low Energy Awareness. In lieu of the requirements of §§ 25.171, 25.173, 25.175, and 25.177, the following special conditions apply:
a. The airplane must be shown to have suitable static lateral, directional, and longitudinal stability in any condition normally encountered in service, including the effects of atmospheric disturbance. The showing of suitable static lateral, directional, and longitudinal stability must be based on the airplane handling qualities, including pilot workload and pilot compensation, for specific test procedures during the flight test evaluations.
b. The airplane must provide adequate awareness to the pilot of a low energy (e.g., low speed, low thrust, or low height) state when fitted with flight control laws presenting neutral longitudinal stability significantly below the normal operating speeds. “Adequate awareness” means warning information must be provided to alert the crew of unsafe operating conditions and to enable them to take appropriate corrective action.
c. The static directional stability (as shown by the tendency to recover from a skid with the rudder free) must be positive for any landing gear and flap position and symmetrical power condition, at speeds from 1.13 V
d. The static lateral stability (as shown by the tendency to raise the low wing in a sideslip with the aileron controls free) for any landing gear and wing-flap position and symmetric power condition, may not be negative at any airspeed (except that speeds higher than V
i. From 1.13 V
ii. From V
1. Gradual;
2. Easily recognizable by the pilot; and
3. Easily controllable by the pilot.
e. In straight, steady sideslips over the range of sideslip angles appropriate to the operation of the airplane, but not less than those obtained with one-half of the available rudder control movement (but not exceeding a rudder control force of 180 pounds), rudder control movements and forces must be substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip in a stable sense; and the factor of proportionality must lie between limits found necessary for safe operation. This requirement must be met for the configurations and speeds specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
f. For sideslip angles greater than those prescribed by paragraph (e) of this section, up to the angle at which full rudder control is used or a rudder control force of 180 pounds is obtained, the rudder control forces may not reverse, and increased rudder deflection must be needed for increased angles of sideslip. Compliance with this requirement must be shown using straight, steady sideslips, unless full lateral control input is achieved before reaching either full rudder control input or a rudder control force of 180 pounds; a straight, steady sideslip need not be maintained after achieving full lateral control input. This requirement must be met at all approved landing gear and wing-flap positions for the range of operating speeds and power conditions appropriate to each landing gear and wing-flap position with all engines operating.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Murray Morgan Bridge, also known as the South 11th Street Bridge, across Thea Foss Waterway, mile 0.6, previously known as City Waterway, at Tacoma, WA. This proposed rule would allow more efficient staffing of the bridge operating crew by requiring advance notification for bridge openings during designated hours. This proposed rule will also remove existing authorized closure periods for the bridge to better reflect present day transportation needs. Lastly, this proposed change will update contact information for requesting emergency bridge openings.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 4, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-0911 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth District; telephone 206-220-7282 email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0911), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before December 20, 2012, using one of the four methods specified under
Presently the bridge operates under 33 CFR 117.1061 which requires a two hour notice for an opening and allows the bridge to not open during morning and afternoon rush hours. This proposed rule will eliminate the authorized closure during the morning and afternoon rush hour and it will add an additional advance notification for bridge openings between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Waterway users and Marine Facilities in the vicinity of the bridge have received direct email correspondence to inform them of the proposed rule. Additionally the Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation to test the proposed rule and to gather comments or concerns about the proposed rule. The temporary test deviation may be found online at
The Coast Guard, at the request of the City of Tacoma, proposes to change the regulation which governs the operating schedule of the Murray Morgan Bridge. This proposed change will allow the City of Tacoma to staff the bridge operating crew more efficiently and will better accommodate present day transportation needs. This proposed change will also update contact information needed to request emergency openings of the bridge.
Three amendments to the existing operating regulation are being proposed for the Murray Morgan Bridge. The first proposed amendment would require that for bridge openings between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., notification be made no later than 8 p.m. prior to the desired opening. This differs from the existing regulation in that presently the bridge is required to open at all times (except during authorized closure periods) provided two hours advance notice is given. This amendment for notification by 8 p.m. for openings between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. is being proposed because openings between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. are extremely rare. Over an 18 month period there were only 6 bridge openings requested between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. which averages one bridge opening request per three month period. One of the unique features of the Murray Morgan Bridge is its height above the waterway providing 60 feet of clearance at mean high water (MHW) in the closed position. Because of this vertical clearance the overwhelming majority of vessels which transit this waterway do not require a bridge opening. The majority of bridge openings are for locally moored and operated recreational sailboats with mast heights over 60 feet. Almost all of these vessels are moored at marinas in very close proximity of the bridge.
The second amendment proposed to the regulation is to remove the authorized morning and afternoon bridge closure periods. The current regulation states that the draw need not be opened from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, for vessels of less than 1,000 gross tons. This proposed change would require the draw to open at all times with proper advance notification. The morning and afternoon authorized closures of the bridge outlined in the existing regulation were put into place when the bridge was part of SR 509, a
The third proposed amendment to the existing regulation changes the contact information for emergency bridge openings. The existing regulation states “In emergencies, openings shall be made as soon as possible upon notification to the Washington State Department of Transportation.” The proposed change would state notification for emergency opening would be made to the City of Tacoma. The reason for this change is because Washington State turned over ownership and responsibility of the bridge to the City of Tacoma on January 6, 1998. To help evaluate these proposed changes the Coast Guard has issued a Temporary Deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Murray Morgan Bridge. The Temporary Deviation mirrors the regulation changes proposed in this document. Comments may be submitted for the Temporary Deviation following the same procedure as outlined in the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
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 Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be insignificant and therefore a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Very few vessels will be impacted because all requested bridge openings will be granted with advance notification.
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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it does not authorize closure periods for the bridge. Additionally, because the bridge provides 60 feet of vertical clearance when it is in the closed position only a very few numbers of vessels using the waterway require a bridge opening to transit the area. The vessels that require a bridge opening are primarily privately owned tall mast sailboats moored in close proximity of the bridge. Vessels which do require an opening will be granted an opening without delay when appropriate notification is given.
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 would call for no 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 have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will 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 because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides 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 which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Amend § 117.1061 to revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b) The draw of the Murray Morgan Bridge, also known as the South 11th Street Bridge, across Thea Foss Waterway, previously known as City Waterway, mile 0.6, at Tacoma, shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given. However, to obtain a bridge opening between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., notification must be made to the City of Tacoma by 8 p.m. In emergencies, openings shall be made as soon as possible upon notification to the City of Tacoma.
Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Proposed requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education proposes requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Native American Career and Technical Education Program (NACTEP). The Assistant Secretary may use these requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for a competition in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and possibly in later years. The requirements, definitions, and selection criteria we propose in this notice are the same as those we used in the notice inviting applications for the first NACTEP competition we held in FY 2007 (see
We must receive your comments on or before December 20, 2012.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Gwen Washington, by telephone: (202) 245-7790, or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed requirements, definitions, and selection criteria by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in rooms 11076/11075, 550-12th Street SW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the persons listed under
20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq., particularly 2326(a)-(g).
Section 116 of the Act authorizes the Secretary to award grants, cooperative agreements, or enter into contracts with Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and Alaska Native entities to operate career and technical education projects that improve career and technical education for Native American and Alaska Native students. Bureau-funded schools are eligible under NACTEP, except for Bureau-funded schools proposing to use their awards to support secondary school career and technical education programs. Any Indian tribe, tribal organization, Alaska Native entity, or eligible Bureau-funded school may apply individually or as part of a consortium with one or more eligible tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, or eligible Bureau-funded schools. (Eligible applicants seeking to apply for funds as a consortium must meet the requirements in 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, which apply to group applications.)
The Act also provides in the statement of purpose that programs funded under the Act should build on the efforts of States and localities to develop challenging academic and technical standards and to assist students in meeting such standards, including in preparation for high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations in emerging or established professions. (20 U.S.C. 2301(1)) In addition, programs are required to provide technical assistance that promotes leadership, initial preparation, and professional development and improves the quality of career and technical education teachers, faculty, administrators, and counselors. (20 U.S.C. 2301(5)) Additionally, the Act's purpose section calls for supporting partnerships among secondary schools, postsecondary institutions, baccalaureate degree-granting institutions, area career and technical education schools, local workforce investment boards, business and industry, and intermediaries, as well as for providing, in conjunction with other education and training programs, individuals with opportunities throughout their lives to develop the knowledge and skills needed to keep the United States competitive. (20 U.S.C. 2301(6) and (7))
We are not including in this notice, or seeking public comment on, requirements or definitions contained in the Act, in Federal statutory provisions cross-referenced in the Act, in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), or in any other applicable, existing regulations. For the convenience of eligible applicants, in our notice announcing the next NACTEP competition we plan to discuss statutory program requirements and definitions, and key applicable regulatory provisions, as we did in the March 2007 notice inviting applications.
(a) We propose that an eligible applicant (as determined by the Act) must include documentation in its application showing that it and, if appropriate, its consortium members are eligible to apply.
(b) As defined in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA) (25 U.S.C. 450b(l)) the term “tribal organization” means the recognized governing body of any Indian tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian community to be served by such organization and which includes the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities: provided, that in any case where a contract is let or grant made to an organization to perform services benefiting more than one Indian tribe, the approval of each such Indian tribe shall be a prerequisite to the letting or making of such contract or grant. In accordance with this statutory definition, we propose that any tribal organization proposing to provide NACTEP services for the benefit of more than one Indian tribe must first obtain the approval of each Indian tribe it proposes to serve and must submit documentation of such approval with its NACTEP application and that documentation of tribal approval be a prerequisite to the awarding of a NACTEP grant to any tribal organization proposing to serve more than one Indian tribe.
Consistent with the Act, the Secretary proposes the following requirements, to align NACTEP with other authorized programs that require recipients of funds under the Act to develop challenging academic standards and improve career and technical education.
(a)
(1) Propose organized educational activities offering a sequence of courses that—
(i) Provide individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and careers in current or emerging professions;
(ii) Provide technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and
(iii) Include competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, technical skills, and occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all aspects of an industry, including entrepreneurship, of an individual. Projects may include prerequisite courses (other than remedial courses) that meet the definitional requirements of section 3(5) of the Act. (20 U.S.C. 2302(5)) In addition, at the secondary level, coherent and rigorous academic curriculum must be aligned with challenging academic content standards and student academic achievement standards in reading or language arts and in mathematics that the State in which the applicant is located has established under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (20 U.S.C. 6301
(2) Develop new programs, services, or activities or improve or expand existing programs, services, or activities that are consistent with the purposes of the Act. In other words, the Department will support “expansions” or “improvements” that include, but are not limited to, the expansion of effective programs or practices; upgrading of activities, equipment, or materials; increasing staff capacity; adoption of new technology; modification of curriculum; or implementation of new policies to improve program effectiveness and outcomes.
(3) Fund a career and technical education program, service, or activity that—
(i) Is a new program, service, or activity that was not provided by the applicant during the instructional term (a defined period, such as a semester, trimester, or quarter, within the academic year) that preceded the request for funding under NACTEP;
(ii) Will improve or expand an existing career and technical education program; or
(iii) Inherently improves career and technical education.
A program, service, or activity “inherently improves career and technical education” if it—
(a) Develops new career and technical education programs of study that will be approved by the appropriate accreditation agency;
(b) Strengthens the rigor of the academic and career and technical components of funded programs;
(c) Uses curriculum that is aligned with industry-recognized standards and will result in students attaining industry-recognized credentials, certificates, or degrees;
(d) Integrates academics (other than remedial courses) with career and technical education programs through a coherent sequence of courses to ensure learning in the core academic and career and technical subjects;
(e) Links career and technical education at the secondary level with career and technical education at the postsecondary level and facilitates students' pursuit of a baccalaureate degree;
(f) Expands the scope, depth, and relevance of curriculum, especially content that provides students with a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of an industry and a variety of hands-on, job-specific experiences; and
(g) Offers—
(1) Work-related experience, internships, cooperative education, school-based enterprises, entrepreneurship, community service learning, and job shadowing that are related to career and technical education programs;
(2) Coaching/mentoring, support services, and extra help for students after school, on weekends and/or during the summers, so they can meet higher standards;
(3) Career guidance and academic counseling for students participating in career and technical education programs;
(4) Placement services for students who have successfully completed career and technical education programs and attained a technical skill proficiency that is aligned with industry-recognized standards;
(5) Professional development programs for teachers, counselors, and administrators;
(6) Strong partnerships among grantees and local educational agencies, postsecondary institutions, community leaders, adult education providers, and, as appropriate, other entities, such as employers, labor organizations, parents, and local partnerships, to enable students to achieve State academic standards and career and technical skills;
(7) The use of student assessment and evaluation data to improve continually instruction and staff development with the goal of increasing student achievement in career and technical education programs; or
(8) Research, development, demonstration, dissemination, evaluation and assessment, capacity-building, and technical assistance, related to career and technical education programs.
(b)
(1) To be eligible for a stipend a student must—
(i) Be enrolled in a career and technical education project funded under this program;
(ii) Be in regular attendance in a NACTEP project and meet the training institution's attendance requirement;
(iii) Maintain satisfactory progress in his or her program of study according to the training institution's published standards for satisfactory progress; and
(iv) Have an acute economic need that—
(A) Prevents participation in a project funded under this program without a stipend; and
(B) Cannot be met through a work-study program.
(2) The amount of a stipend is the greater of either the minimum hourly wage prescribed by State or local law or the minimum hourly wage established under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
(3) A grantee may only award a stipend if the stipend combined with other resources the student receives does not exceed the student's financial need. A student's financial need is the difference between the student's cost of attendance and the financial aid or other resources available to defray the student's cost of participating in a NACTEP project.
(4) To calculate the amount of a student's stipend, a grantee would multiply the number of hours a student actually attends career and technical education instruction by the amount of the minimum hourly wage that is prescribed by State or local law, or by the minimum hourly wage that is established under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
If a grantee uses the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum hourly wage of $7.25 and a student attends classes for 20 hours a week, the student's stipend would be $145 for the week during which the student attends classes ($7.25 × 20 = $145.00).
In accordance with applicable Department statutory requirements and administrative regulations, grantees must maintain records that fully support their
(5) An eligible student may receive a stipend when taking a course for the first time. However, generally a stipend may not be provided to a student who has already taken, completed, and had the opportunity to benefit from a course and is merely repeating the course.
(6) An applicant must include in its application the procedure it intends to use to determine student eligibility for stipends and stipend amounts, and its oversight procedures for the awarding and payment of stipends.
(c)
(1) The recipient of the direct assistance is an individual who is a member of a special population and who is participating in the grantee's NACTEP project.
(2) The direct assistance is needed to address barriers to the individual's successful participation in that project.
(3) The direct assistance is part of a broader, more generally focused program or activity to address the needs of an individual who is a member of a special population.
Direct assistance to individuals who are members of special populations is not, by itself, a “program or activity for special populations.”
(4) The grant funds used for direct assistance must be expended to supplement, and not supplant, assistance that is otherwise available from non-Federal sources. (20 U.S.C. 2391(a)) For example, generally, a postsecondary educational institution could not use NACTEP funds to provide child care for single parents if non-Federal funds previously were made available for this purpose, or if non-Federal funds are used to provide child care services for single parents participating in non-career and technical education programs and these services otherwise would have been available to career and technical education students in the absence of NACTEP funds.
(5) In determining how much of the NACTEP grant funds it will use for direct assistance to an eligible student, a grantee must consider whether the specific services to be provided are a reasonable and necessary cost of providing career and technical education programs for special populations. However, the Secretary does not envision a circumstance in which it would be a reasonable and necessary expenditure of NACTEP project funds for a grantee to use a majority of a project's budget to pay direct assistance to students, in lieu of providing the students served by the project with career and technical education.
(a)
(b)
(1) Be appropriate for the project and be both formative and summative in nature;
(2) Include—
(i) Applicable performance measures for NACTEP;
(ii) Qualitative and quantitative data with respect to—
(A) Academic and career and technical competencies demonstrated by the participants and the number and kinds of academic and work credentials acquired by individuals, including participation in programs providing skill proficiency assessments, industry certifications, or training at the associate degree level that is articulated with an advanced degree option;
(B) Enrollment, completion, and placement of participants by gender for each occupation for which training was provided;
(C) Job or work skill attainment or enhancement, including participation in apprenticeship and work-based learning programs, and student progress in achieving technical skill proficiencies necessary to obtain employment in the field for which the student has been prepared, including attainment or enhancement of technical skills in the industry the student is preparing to enter;
(D) Activities during the formative stages of the project to help guide and improve the project, as well as a summative evaluation that includes recommendations for disseminating information on project activities and results;
(E) The number and percentage of students who obtained industry-recognized credentials, certificates, or degrees;
(F) If available, the outcomes of students' technical assessments, by type and scores; and
(G) The rates of attainment of a proficiency credential or certificate, in conjunction with a secondary school diploma.
(c)
(1) A comparison between the intended and observed results; and
(2) A demonstration of a clear link between the observed results and the specific treatment given to project participants.
(d)
(e)
We are proposing the following definitions for program terms not defined in the Act, by cross-references in the Act to other Federal statutes, or in EDGAR:
The Assistant Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. We will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion in the notice inviting applications, in the application package, or both.
(a)
(b)
(1) The potential contribution of the proposed project toward increasing the understanding of educational needs, issues, or strategies for providing career and technical education to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
(2) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement in the applicant's educational program as evidenced by the types of training and activities identified in the project application.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the career and technical needs of the target population.
(c)
(1) The extent to which goals, objectives, and outcomes are clearly specified and measurable (e.g., identification of the requirements for each course of study to be provided under the project, the technical skill proficiencies to be taught and the industry-recognized standards or competency assessments to be used, including related training areas and a description of the industry certifications, credentials, certificates, or degrees that students may earn; expected enrollments, completions, and student placements in jobs, military specialties, and continuing education/training opportunities in each career training area; the number of teachers, counselors, and administrators to be trained).
(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs, as evidenced by the applicant's description of programs and activities that align with the target population's needs.
(3) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project plans for and is likely to result in the development of information that will guide possible dissemination of information on project practices, activities, or strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project, planned dissemination activities, the kind of practices, activities, or strategies to be disseminated, the target audience for the dissemination of such practices, activities, or strategies, and the proposed uses for such disseminated practices, activities, or strategies.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with or will be coordinated with similar or related efforts, and with community, State, or Federal resources, where such opportunities and resources exist.
(d)
(1) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project would be of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the project staff and instructors, including the extent to which the proposed training and professional development plans address ways in which learning gaps will be addressed and how continuous review of performance will be conducted to identify training needs.
(2) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project will create opportunities for students to receive an industry-recognized credential; become employed in high-skill, high-wage, and high-demand occupations; or both.
(3) The extent to which the services proposed in the project will create opportunities for students to acquire technical skill proficiencies, industry certifications, or the skills identified by State or industry-recognized career and technical education programs or professions. In describing the services, there must be a clear link between the services and the skill proficiencies, industry certifications, credentials, certificates, or degrees that students may earn.
(e)
(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training, expertise, and experience, of the project director, key personnel, and project consultants.
(3) The extent to which the project will use instructors who are certified to teach in the field in which they will provide instruction.
(f)
(1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization(s) and the tribal entity or entities to be served.
(2) The extent to which the budget is adequate and costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the proposed project.
(3) The relevance and demonstrated commitment (e.g., through written career and technical education agreements, memoranda of understanding, letters of support and commitment, or commitments to employ project participants, as appropriate) of the applicant, members of the consortium, local employers, or tribal entities to be served by the project.
(4) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends.
(g)
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and the milestones and performance standards for accomplishing project tasks.
(2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and other key project personnel are
(3) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.
(h)
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the grantee are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) performance measures, and will produce quantitative and qualitative data, to the extent possible.
(3) The extent to which the methods of the evaluation include processes that consider the validity and integrity of data collection and analysis; accessibility of appropriate and timely data; accurate descriptions of performance; collection processes that yield unbiased, unprejudiced, and impartial data results; and the extent to which representation of the data clearly communicates an accurate picture of performance.
(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and continuous improvement toward achieving intended outcomes.
(5) The quality of the evaluation to be conducted by an external evaluator with the necessary background and technical expertise to carry out the evaluation.
In accordance with the requirement in section 116(e) of the Act, we have included the following additional selection factors and propose to award additional points to any application addressing the following factors, as indicated. We are not soliciting public comment on the section 116(e) requirement but only on the way we are proposing to meet the requirement.
We propose to award—
(a) Up to 10 additional points to applications that propose exemplary approaches that involve, coordinate with, or encourage tribal economic development plans; and
(b) Five points to applications from tribally controlled colleges or universities that—
(1) Are accredited or are candidates for accreditation by a nationally recognized accreditation organization as an institution of postsecondary career and technical education; or
(2) Operate career and technical education programs that are accredited or are candidates for accreditation by a nationally recognized accreditation organization and issue certificates for completion of career and technical education programs (20 U.S.C. 2326(e)).
We will determine final requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for NACTEP after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. We will announce final requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for NACTEP in a notice in the
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these proposed requirements, definitions, and selection criteria based on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; Extension of public comment period.
The EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment period for the proposed rule titled “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I.” In addition, the EPA is notifying the public that additional documentation related to this proposed rule was entered into the docket on November 8, 2012.
The public comment period started on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63538). This document announces the extension of the deadline for public comment from December 17, 2012 to January 16, 2013. Comments must be received on or before January 16, 2013.
You may submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address:
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice will also be available through the WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting rule Web site at
To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207-J, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, email address:
In this action, the EPA is providing notice that it is extending the comment period on the proposed rule titled “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I” which was published on October 16, 2012. The previous deadline for submitting public comment on that rule was December 17, 2012. The EPA is extending that deadline to January 16, 2013. This extension will provide the general public additional time for participation and comments.
In addition, the EPA is notifying the public that additional documentation related to this proposed rule was entered into the docket on November 8, 2012 and is available for public review. This documentation summarizes a call between the Semiconductor Industry Association and the EPA held on October 24, 2012 and provides additional information in response to questions raised on that call, including additional information regarding the calculation of the “Tier 2a” emission factors that appear in Tables I-11 and I-12 of the proposed rule and regarding the identification of an error in those calculations. The two new documents added to the docket to provide this information are “EPA SIA Call Summary from October 24 2012” and “Tier 2a NF3 and C2F6 Emission Factor Calculations”. The EPA encourages the public to review these documents when considering comments on this proposed rule.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Greenhouse gases, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communication Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
In this document, a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Michael Mulcay, Chairman of Wireless Strategies, Inc., on the behalf of Wireless Strategies.
Oppositions to the Petition must be file on or before December 5, 2012. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before December 17, 2012.
Submit oppositions to the Petition or replies to an opposition to Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
John Schauble, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-0797.
This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 2964, released October 22, 2012. The full text of this document 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 Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of regulatory review; request for comments.
NHTSA seeks comments on the economic impact of its regulations on small entities. As required by Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we are attempting to identify rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We also request comments on ways to make these regulations easier to read and understand. The focus of this notice is rules that specifically relate to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and motor vehicle equipment.
You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than January 22, 2013.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket ID Number NHTSA-2012-0155] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Juanita Kavalauskas, Office of Regulatory Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-2584, fax 202-366-3189).
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), requires agencies to conduct periodic reviews of final rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. The purpose of the reviews is to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules on a substantial number of such small entities.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) published its Semiannual Regulatory Agenda on November 22, 1999, listing in Appendix D (64 FR 64684) those regulations that each operating administration will review under section 610 during the next 12 months. Appendix D contained DOT's 10-year review plan for all of its existing regulations. On November 24, 2008, NHTSA published in the
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, “we”) has divided its rules into 10 groups by subject area. Each group will be reviewed once every 10 years, undergoing a two-stage process—an Analysis Year and a Review Year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall publication schedule of the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. The newly revised 10-year plan will assess years 9 and 10 of the old plan in years 1 and 2 of the new plan. Year 1 (2008) began in the fall of 2008 and will end in the fall of 2009; Year 2 (2009) will begin in the fall of 2009 and will end in the fall of 2010; and so on.
During the Analysis Year, we will request public comment on and analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In each fall's Regulatory Agenda, we will publish the results of the analyses we completed during the previous year. For rules that have subparts, or other discrete sections of rules that do have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, we will announce that we will be conducting a formal section 610 review during the following 12 months.
The section 610 review will determine whether a specific rule should be revised or revoked to lessen its impact on small entities. We will consider: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal rules or with state or local government rules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. At the end of the Review Year, we will publish the results of our review. The following table shows the 10-year analysis and review schedule:
During Year 5, we will continue to conduct a preliminary assessment of the following: 49 CFR 571.101 through 571.110, and 571.135, 571.138 and 571.139.
We are seeking comments on whether any requirements in 49 CFR 571.101 through 571.110, and 571.135, 571.138 and 571.139 have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, for the purposes of receiving Small Business Administration (SBA) assistance. Size standards established by SBA in 13 CFR 121.201 are expressed either in number of employees or annual receipts in millions of dollars, unless otherwise specified. The number of employees or annual receipts indicates the maximum allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered small. If your business or organization is a small entity and if any of the requirements in 49 CFR 571.101 through 571.110, and 571.135, 571.138 and 571.139 have a significant economic impact on your business or organization, please submit a comment to explain how and to what degree these rules affect you, the extent of the economic impact on your business or organization, and why you believe the economic impact is significant.
If the agency determines that there is a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, it will ask for comment in a subsequent notice during the Review Year on how these impacts could be reduced without reducing safety.
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.
In conjunction with our section 610 reviews, we will be performing plain language reviews over a ten-year period on a schedule consistent with the section 610 review schedule. We will review 49 CFR 571.101 through 571.110, and 571.135, 571.138 and 571.139 to determine if these regulations can be reorganized and/or rewritten to make them easier to read, understand, and use. We encourage interested persons to submit draft regulatory language that clearly and simply communicates regulatory requirements, and other recommendations, such as for putting information in tables that may make the regulations easier to use.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.) We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
(1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
(2) FDMS provides two basic methods of searching to retrieve dockets and docket materials that are available in the system: (a) “Quick Search” to search using a full-text search engine, or (b) “Advanced Search,” which displays various indexed fields such as the docket name, docket identification number, phase of the action, initiating office, date of issuance, document title, document identification number, type of document,
(3) You may download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).
Notice of Membership of SES Performance Review Board.
Title 5 United States Code, Section 4314, requires that notice of the appointment of an individual to serve as a member of a performance review board (PRB) shall be published in the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.
Donna S. Grace, Director, Office of Human Resources, 202-382-7500.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize and expand FTZ 33 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit, and to a sunset provision that would terminate authority on October 31, 2017 for Site 18 if no activity has occurred under FTZ procedures before that date. Sites 6-17 remain subject to a sunset provision that would terminate authority on February 28, 2015 where no activity has occurred under FTZ procedures before that date.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The President's Export Council will hold a meeting to deliberate on recommendations related to export expansion through streamlined consideration of trade legislation and through building a competitive manufacturing workforce. The final agenda will be posted in advance of the meeting on the President's Export Council Web site at
December 6, 2012 at 8:00 a.m. (ET).
The President's Export Council meeting will be broadcast via live webcast on the Internet at
Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-5876, email:
Submit statements electronically via the President's Export Council Web site at
Send paper statements to Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Statements will be posted on the President's Export Council Web site (
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Amendment to Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service is amending the Notice regarding the U.S. Multi-Sector Trade Mission to South India (Chennai and Cochin) and Sri Lanka (Colombo) February 3-8, 2013, published at 77 FR 48499, August 14, 2012 to revise the application deadline from November 30, 2012 to the new deadline of December 21, 2012, to provide for selection of applicants on a rolling basis, and to expand the eligibility to include U.S. trade associations.
In August 2012 the Department of Commerce initiated recruitment for participation in the U.S. Multi-Sector Trade Mission to Chennai and Cochin, India and Colombo, Sri Lanka on February 3-8, 2013, published at 77 FR 48499, August 14, 2012, as previously amended by notice at 77 FR 59899 (Oct. 1, 2012) adding architectural services as a targeted sector for this mission. Due to the Thanksgiving holidays and disruptions related to Hurricane Sandy, it has been determined that additional time is needed to allow for additional recruitment and marketing in support of the mission. Applications now will be accepted through December 21, 2012. Interested firms and trade associations in the architecture, infrastructure, hospitality, healthcare, and environmental and information technologies sectors, including firms and trade associations that have not already submitted an application, are encouraged to apply. Applications will be accepted after the deadline only to the extent that space remains and scheduling constraints permit. In addition, to facilitate the ability of firms to take the mission into account in their business planning, US&FCS will begin to make selection decisions beginning November 15, 2012.
As originally published, the
The Fees and Expenses, Conditions for Participation, Selection Criteria for Participation, and Timeframe for Recruitment and Applications sections of the U.S. Multi-Sector Trade Mission to Chennai and Cochin, India and Colombo, Sri Lanka are amended to read as follows:
After a company or trade association has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the U.S. Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee is $4,481 for large firms and $4,303 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME)
Applicants must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's (or in the case of a trade association, member companies') products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may either: reject the application, request additional information/clarification, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, are marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content. In the case of a trade association, the applicant must certify that for each company to be represented by the association, the products and/or services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content.
• Suitability of the company's (or in the case of a trade association, member companies') products or services to the mission goals.
• Applicant's (or in the case of a trade association, member companies') potential for business in India and Sri Lanka, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the applicant's (or in the case of a trade association, member companies') goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Additional factors, such as diversity of company size, type, location, and demographics, may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission began in August 2012 and will conclude December 21, 2012 for U.S. company and trade association participants. The U.S. Department of Commerce will being reviewing applications and making selection decisions on a rolling basis beginning November 15, 2012, until the maximum of 20 participants is selected. Applications received by U.S. companies after October 12, 2012 and by U.S. trade associations after November 12, 2012, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
NMFS announces its intent to issue Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs), Scientific Research Permits (SRPs), Display Permits, Letters of Acknowledgment (LOAs), and Chartering Permits for the collection of Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) in 2013. In general, EFPs and related permits would authorize collection of a limited number of tunas, swordfish, billfishes, and sharks from Federal waters in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico for the purposes of scientific data collection and public display. Chartering Permits allow the collection of HMS on the high seas or in the Exclusive Economic Zone of other nations. Generally, EFPs and related permits will be valid from the date of issuance through December 31, 2013, unless otherwise specified, subject to the terms and conditions of individual permits.
Written comments on these activities received in response to this notice will be considered by NMFS when issuing EFPs and related permits and must be received on or before December 20, 2012.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Craig Cockrell or Michael Clark, phone: (301) 427-8503, fax: (301) 713-1917.
Issuance of EFPs and related permits are necessary for the collection of HMS for public display and scientific research that is exempt from regulations (e.g., fishing seasons, prohibited species, authorized gear, closed areas, and minimum sizes) that may prohibit the collection of live animals or biological samples. Collection for scientific research and display represents a small portion of the overall fishing mortality for HMS, and this mortality is counted against the quota of the species harvested, as appropriate and applicable. The terms and conditions of individual permits are unique; however, all permits will include reporting requirements, limit the number and species of HMS to be collected, and only authorize collection in Federal waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea.
EFPs and related permits are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801
Scientific research is not exempt from regulation under ATCA. NMFS issues SRPs for collection of species managed under this statute (e.g., tunas, swordfish, billfish, and some species of sharks), which authorize researchers to collect HMS from bona fide research vessels. One example of research conducted under SRPs consists of scientific surveys of HMS conducted from the NOAA research vessels. EFPs are issued to researchers collecting ATCA-managed species and conducting research from commercial or recreational fishing vessels. NMFS regulations concerning the implantation or attachment of archival tags in Atlantic HMS require scientists to report their activities associated with these tags. Examples of research conducted under EFPs include deploying pop-up satellite archival tags on billfish, sharks, and tunas to determine migration patterns of these species; conducting billfish larval tows to determine billfish habitat use, life history, and population structure; and determining catch rates and gear characteristics of the swordfish buoy gear fishery.
NMFS is also seeking public comment on its intent to issue Display Permits for the collection of sharks and other HMS for public display in 2013. Collection of sharks and other HMS sought for public display in aquaria often involves collection when the commercial fishing seasons are closed, collection of otherwise prohibited species, and collection of fish below the minimum size. NMFS established a 60-metric ton (mt) whole weight (ww) (approximately 3,000 sharks) quota for the public display and research of sharks (combined) in the final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP). The public display and scientific research quotas for sandbar sharks are limited to 2.78 mt ww (2 mt dressed weight (dw)): 1.39 mt ww for public display and 1.39 mt ww for scientific research. Public display of dusky sharks is prohibited. These quotas have been analyzed in conjunction with other sources of mortality under Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, and NMFS has determined that harvesting this amount for public display will not have a significant impact on the stocks. The number of sharks harvested for display and research has remained under the annual 60-mt ww quota every year since establishment of the quota. In 2011, approximately 58 percent of the sharks authorized for public display and scientific research purposes were actually harvested or discarded dead. Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP also established a separate set-aside quota for smoothhound sharks (i.e., smooth dogfish and Florida smoothhounds) taken for research purposes, which would be in addition to the overall 60-mt ww quota for the public display and research of all sharks. However, the smoothhound shark research set-aside quota is not yet effective and their harvest resulting from research activities is not yet deducted from the set-aside quota for public display and research of sharks. NMFS will announce when such regulations become effective through a publication in the
For the coming year, NMFS is expecting EFP applications that would request some form of “compensation fishing” to offset the expenses for vessel owners participating in HMS research efforts. One of the applications would potentially investigate bycatch reduction research, specifically; bycatch “hotspots” identified during past research efforts in closed areas of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, including the Charleston Bump and Florida East Coast Closed Areas. As part of compensation fishing, vessels employed would be authorized to sell some of their catch to offset expenses. This research would test gear modifications and fishing techniques aimed to avoid incidental capture of non-target species. The Agency would provide additional opportunity for public comment on this research. Furthermore, NMFS would seek additional public comment, as necessary, on specific proposals where research is not being conducted solely from bona fide research vessels or fishing vessels specifically contracted to conduct scientific research.
NMFS is also aware of research activities that may be proposed in 2013 that would investigate bluefin tuna life history and migration patterns from pelagic longline vessels. This request would also potentially involve compensation fishing (i.e., the ability for vessels to sell additional bluefin tuna in excess of the retention limits) to offset costs of vessels participating in the research. Compensation fishing is only authorized if the researchers and vessels have been issued an EFP, consistent with § 600.745 regulations. As stated above, NMFS would seek additional public comments specifically on this type of activity, as necessary, before issuing an EFP if the vessels are not bona fide research vessels.
NMFS is also requesting comments on chartering permits considered for issuance in 2013 to U.S. vessels fishing for HMS while operating under chartering arrangements. NMFS has not issued any chartering permits since 2004. A chartering arrangement is a contract or agreement between a U.S. vessel owner and a foreign entity by which the control, use, or services of a vessel are secured for a period of time for fishing for Atlantic HMS. Before fishing under a chartering arrangement, the owner of the U.S. fishing vessel must apply for a Chartering Permit. The vessel chartering regulations can be found at § 635.5(a)(4) and § 635.32(e).
In 2012, NMFS issued an EFP to scientists researching the methods required to successfully culture bluefin and yellowfin tuna in the United States. Due to the limited number of specimens authorized and the fishing gear employed, the Agency did not seek additional comment because the research was within the scope of the 2012 EFP Notice of Intent. Up to six, 24-27” yellowfin and bluefin tuna were collected on rod and reel gear and then transported fish to land-based holding tanks where they are kept through their breeding life. If the scientists are successful in breeding yellowfin and bluefin tuna, the research would ultimately provide larvae and juveniles for an array of investigations. No release of fish from the holding tanks is authorized under the permit. The Agency expects to receive additional applications for this type of research in 2013.
In addition, Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP implemented a shark research fishery. This research
The authorized number of species for 2012, as well as the number of specimens collected in 2011, is summarized in Table 1. The number of specimens collected in 2012 will be available when all 2012 interim and annual reports are submitted to NMFS. In 2011, the number of specimens collected was less than the number of authorized specimens for most permit types, with the exception of the number of larvae collected under billfish EFPs, and sharks taken under SRPs and Display permits. It is difficult to control the quantity of larvae that may be caught when sampling fish larvae. However, the impacts of these collections on fish populations are not expected to be significant given the high level of natural mortality of fish larvae. As for sharks taken under EFPs, SRPs, and Display Permits, 3,178 of the sharks taken were Atlantic sharpnose sharks collected during trips using longline gear; it is also difficult to control the number and species of animals caught when using this gear type. However, as Atlantic sharpnose sharks were not found to be overfished nor have overfishing occurring during its most recent stock assessment in 2007, these collections are not expected to have any impacts on Atlantic sharpnose populations.
In all cases, mortality associated with an EFP, SRP, Display Permit, or LOA (except for larvae) is counted against the appropriate quota. NMFS issued a total of 32 EFPs, SRPs, Display Permits, and LOAs in 2011 for the collection of HMS. As of October 31, 2012, NMFS has issued a total of 43 EFPs, SRPs, Display Permits, and LOAs. These do not include permits that were issued for research related to the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2012, three permits were issued for research related to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Final decisions on the issuance of any EFPs, SRPs, Display Permits, and Chartering Permits will depend on the submission of all required information about the proposed activities, NMFS review of public comments received on this notice, an applicant's reporting history on past permits issued, any prior violations of marine resource laws administered by NOAA, consistency with relevant NEPA documents, and any consultations with appropriate Regional Fishery Management Councils, states, or Federal agencies. NMFS does not anticipate any significant environmental impacts from the issuance of these EFPs as assessed in the 1999 FMP, Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, 2011 Bluefin Tuna Specifications, and 2012 Swordfish Specifications.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; nominations for Advisory Panel.
NMFS solicits nominations for the Advisory Panel (AP) for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) Workshops (this AP is also called the “SEDAR Pool”). The SEDAR Pool is comprised of a group of individuals whom may be selected to consider data and advise NMFS regarding the scientific information, including but not limited to data and models, used in stock assessments for oceanic sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Nominations are being sought for a 3-year appointment (2013-2015). Individuals with definable interests in the recreational and commercial fishing and related industries, environmental community, academia, and non-governmental organizations will be considered for membership on the SEDAR Pool.
Nominations must be received on or before December 20, 2012.
You may submit nominations and request the SEDAR Pool Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional information on SEDAR and the SEDAR guidelines can be found at
Delisse Ortiz or Karyl Brewster-Geisz, (301) 425-8503.
Section 302(g)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
The primary purpose of the individuals in the SEDAR Pool is to review, at SEDAR workshops, the scientific information (including but not limited to data and models) used in stock assessments that are used to advise NMFS, as a delegate to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), about the conservation and management of the Atlantic HMS, specifically but not limited to, Atlantic sharks. Individuals in the SEDAR Pool, if selected, may participate in the various data, assessment, and review workshops during the SEDAR process of any HMS stock assessment. In order to ensure that the peer review is unbiased, individuals who participated in a data and/or assessment workshop for a particular stock assessment will not be allowed to serve as reviewers for the same stock assessment. However, these individuals may be asked to attend the review workshop to answer specific questions from the reviewers concerning the data and/or assessment workshops. Members of the SEDAR Pool may serve as members of other APs concurrent with, or following, their service on the SEDAR Pool.
The SEDAR Pool is comprised of individuals representing the commercial and recreational fishing communities for Atlantic sharks, the environmental community active in the conservation and management of Atlantic sharks, and the academic community that have relevant expertise either with sharks or shark-like species and/or stock assessment methodologies for marine fish species. Members of the SEDAR Pool must have demonstrated experience in the fisheries, related industries, research, teaching, writing, conservation, or management of marine organisms. The distribution of representation among the interested parties is not defined or limited.
Additional members of the SEDAR Pool may also include representatives from each of the five Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Councils, each of the 18 states, both the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and each of the interstate commissions: the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.
If NMFS requires additional members to ensure a diverse pool of individuals for data or assessment workshops, NMFS may request individuals to become members of the SEDAR Pool outside of the annual nomination period.
Panel members serve at the discretion of the Secretary. Not all members will attend each SEDAR workshop. Rather, NMFS will invite certain members to participate at specific stock assessment workshops dependent on their ability to participate, discuss, and recommend scientific decisions regarding the species being assessed. If an invited SEDAR Pool member is unable to attend the workshop, the member may send a designee who may represent them and participate in the activities of the workshop. In order to ensure the designee meets the requirements of participating in the data and/or assessment workshop, the designee must receive written approval of the Director of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries at least six weeks in advance of the beginning of the relevant data and/or assessment workshop. Written notification must include the name, address, telephone, email, and position of the individual designated. A designee may not name another designee.
NMFS is not obligated to fulfill any requests (e.g., requests for an assessment of a certain species) that may be made by the SEDAR Pool or its individual members. Members of the SEDAR Pool who are invited to attend stock assessment workshops will not be compensated for their services but may be reimbursed for their travel-related expenses to attend such workshops.
Member tenure will be for 3 years. Nominations are sought for terms beginning early in 2013 and expiring three years later in 2015. Nomination packages should include:
1. The name, address, phone number, and email of the applicant or nominee;
2. A description of his/her interest in Atlantic shark stock assessments or the Atlantic shark fishery;
3. A statement of background and/or qualifications; and
4. A written commitment that the applicant or nominee shall participate actively and in good faith in the tasks of the SEDAR Pool, as requested.
Individual members of the SEDAR Pool meet to participate in stock assessments at the discretion of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS. Stock assessment timing, frequency, and relevant species will vary depending on the needs determined by NMFS and SEDAR staff. Currently, NMFS anticipates holding stock assessments for Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks in 2013 and finetooth and smoothhound sharks in 2014. The specific number and type of meetings or dates for those stock assessments have not yet been determined. Meetings and meeting logistics will be determined according to the SEDAR Guidelines. All meetings are open for observation by the public.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information on spectrum management policy matters.
The meeting will be held on January 17, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4830, and Washington, DC 20230. Public comments may be mailed to Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4099, Washington, DC 20230 or emailed to
Bruce M. Washington, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 482-6415 or
1. WG1 1695-1710 MHz Weather Satellite Receive Earth Stations,
2. WG2 1755-1850 MHz Law Enforcement Surveillance and other short-range fixed,
3. WG3 1755-1850 MHz Satellite Control Links and Electronic Warfare,
4. WG4 1755-1850 MHz Fixed Point-to-Point and Tactical Radio Relay, and
5. WG5 1755-1850 MHz Airborne Operations.
NTIA will post a detailed agenda on its Web site,
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed addition to the procurement list.
The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by the nonprofit agency 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.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 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.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
1. Bedside Sleepers—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
2. Handheld Carriers—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
3. Representative Samples—Final Rule.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 10(a), Public Law 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS). The meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space.
December 11, 2012, 8:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.; December 12, 2012, 8:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Embassy Suites Hotel, 1300 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202.
Mr. Robert Bowling or DACOWITS Staff at 4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 2C548A, Washington, DC 20301-4000.
The purpose of the meeting is to receive a briefing from the Marine Corps on involuntary assignments to the infantry and closed positions. The Army will give an update briefing on their gender neutral standards, and the Committee will receive a DoD update on sexual assault and prevention and response strategy. Additionally, the Committee will receive a briefing on Legislative Proposal for expanded reproductive health care coverage for military women. Finally, the Committee will approve and vote on the final 2012 report.
Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the Point of Contact listed in
If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement, a written statement should be submitted as above. After reviewing the written comments, the Chairperson and the Designated Federal Officer will determine who of the requesting persons will be able to make an oral presentation of their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. Determination of who will be making an oral presentation is at the sole discretion of the Committee Chair and the Designated Federal Officer and will depend on time available and if the topics are relevant to the Committee's activities. Two minutes will be allotted to persons desiring to make an oral presentation. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 from 10:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. in front of the full Committee. Number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public.
Reserve Forces Policy Board, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense.
Notice of Advisory Committee 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 the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) will take place.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012, from 8:15 a.m. to 3:40 p.m.
The address is the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Arlington, VA.
CAPT Steven Knight, Designated Federal Officer, (703) 681-0608 (Voice), (703) 681-0002 (Facsimile),
DoD.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
Under the provisions of section 724 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84), 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(a), the Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces (hereafter referred to as “the Task Force”).
The Task Force is a non-discretionary federal advisory committee that shall (a)
Pursuant to section 724(c) of Public Law 111-84, the Task Force shall, no later than 12 months after the date on which all Task Force members have been appointed and each year thereafter for the life of the Task Force, submit an annual report to the Secretary of Defense on the activities of the Task Force and on the activities of the DoD, to include the Military Departments, to assist and support the care, management, and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured members of the Armed Forces.
At a minimum, the Task Force's report shall include the following:
a. The Task Force's findings and conclusions as a result of its assessment of the effectiveness of developed and implemented DoD policies and programs, to include those of the Military Departments, to assist and support the care, management and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured members of the Armed Forces.
b. A description of best practices and various ways in which the DoD, to include the Military Departments, could more effectively address matters relating to the care, management, and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured members of the Armed Forces, including members of both the Regular and the Reserve Components, and support for their families.
c. A plan listing and describing the Task Force's activities for the upcoming year covered by its annual report.
d. Such recommendations for other legislative or administrative action as the Task Force considers appropriate for measures to improve DoD-wide policies and programs in (a) above.
No later than 90 days after receiving the Task Force's annual report, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives the report and the Secretary's evaluation of the report.
No later than six months after receiving the Task Force's annual report, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Military departments, shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a plan to implement the recommendations of the Task Force's annual report.
Pursuant to section 724(c) of Public Law 111-84, the Task Force reports its independent findings, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.
Pursuant to section 724(a)(3) of Public Law 111-84, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Task Force's work is independent of the Senior Oversight Committee, as defined by section 726(c) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417).
The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) shall oversee the Task Force. The Director of Administration and Management, through the Washington Headquarters Services, shall provide support as deemed necessary for the performance of the Task Force's functions, and the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) shall ensure compliance with the requirements of FACA, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b) (hereinafter referred to as “the Government in the Sunshine Act”), governing Federal statutes and regulations, and established DoD policies/procedures.
The Task Force, pursuant to section 724(b) of Public Law 111-84, shall be comprised of not more than 14 members appointed by the Secretary of Defense with annual renewals.
Pursuant to section 724(b)(2) of Public Law 111-84, the Secretary of Defense shall appoint the following:
a. At least one member of each of the Regular Components of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps;
b. One member of the National Guard;
c. One member of the Reserve Component of the Armed Forces other than the National Guard; and
d. A number of persons from outside the DoD equal to the total number of personnel from within the DoD (whether members of the Armed Forces or civilian personnel) who are appointed to the Task Force.
Pursuant to sections 724(b)(2) through (4) of Public Law 111-84, the Secretary of Defense shall appoint persons meeting the following requirements:
a. At least one individual appointed to the Task Force from within the DoD shall be the Surgeon General of an Armed Force.
b. At least one family member of a wounded, ill, or injured member of the Armed Forces or veteran who has experience working with wounded, ill, and injured members of the Armed Forces or their families.
c. The individuals appointed to the Task Force from outside the DoD—
i. With the concurrence of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall include an officer or employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
ii. May include individuals from other departments or agencies of the Federal Government, from State and local agencies, or from the private sector.
d. Persons appointed to the Task Force shall have experience in—
i. Medical care and coordination for wounded, ill, and injured members of the Armed Forces;
ii. Medical case management;
iii. Non-medical case management;
iv. The disability evaluation process for members of the Armed Forces;
v. Veterans benefits;
vi. Treatment of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder;
vii. Family support;
viii. Medical research;
ix. Vocational rehabilitation; or
x. Disability benefits.
There shall be two co-chairs of the Task Force. One of the co-chairs shall be designated by the Secretary of Defense at the time of appointment from among the individuals appointed to the Task Force from within the DoD. The other co-chair shall be selected from among the individuals appointed from outside the DoD by those individuals.
Pursuant to section 724(e)(1) of Public Law 111-84, Task Force members who are members of the Armed Forces or civilian officers or employees of the United States shall serve on the Task Force without compensation (other than compensation to which entitled as a member of the Armed Forces or an officer or employee of the United States, as the case may be).
Under the provisions of section 724(e)(1) of Public Law 111-84, Task Force members, who are not full-time or permanent part-time federal officers or employees, shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense in accordance with, and subject to, the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 3161 and shall serve as special government employees and authorized to receive compensation.
All Task Force Members shall be renewed on an annual basis. The members shall also receive travel and per diem when traveling on official Task Force business.
Each Task Force 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.
The Department, when necessary and consistent with the Task Force's mission and DoD policies/procedures, may establish subcommittees to support the Task Force. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the Task Force's sponsor.
These Subcommittees shall not work independently of the chartered Task Force, and shall report all of their recommendations and advice solely to the Task Force for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the chartered Task Force; nor can any Subcommittee or its members update or report directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees.
The Secretary of Defense shall appoint Subcommittee members even if the member in question is already a Task Force member with annual renewals.
Subcommittee members that are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees shall be appointed to serve as regular government employee members. Subcommittee members, if not full-time or permanent 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 Task Force-related travel, Subcommittee members shall serve without compensation.
Each Subcommittee member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
All Subcommittees operate under the provisions of FACA, the Government in the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and governing DoD policies/procedures.
Marcia Moore, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-571-7057.
The Task Force shall meet at the call of the Task Force's Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Task Force co-chairs. The estimated number of Task Force meetings is five per year.
In addition, the Designated Federal Officer is required to be in attendance at all Task Force 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 Task Force or subcommittee meeting.
The Designated Federal Officer, or the Alternate Designated Federal Officer, shall call all of the Task Force's and subcommittees' 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 Task Force 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 Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces membership about the Task Force'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 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 Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Force'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 Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy) (DASD (CPP)), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of proposed amendment to demonstration project plans.
Section 342(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995, as amended by section 1009 of the NDAA for FY 2000 and section 1114 of the NDAA for FY 2001, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to conduct personnel demonstration projects at DoD laboratories designated as STRLs. This proposed amendment adds waivers to current STRL
This amendment may not be implemented until a 30-day comment period is provided, comments addressed, and a final
Send comments on or before the comment due date by mail to Mr. William T. Cole, Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Services, Non-
The conventional 1-year probationary period does not allow supervisors an adequate period of time to fully evaluate the contribution and conduct of newly hired personnel. STRLs have included flexibilities allowing up to a three year probationary period. These flexibilities were fully utilized until the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided two cases,
The following FRNs are amended under the authority of section 1114 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2001:
a. Add the following to section IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation: “Chapter 75, sections 7501(1), 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), and 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii); Adverse Actions—Definitions. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except for those with veterans' preference.”
b. Add the following as the final paragraph to section IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation:“Part 752, sections, 752.201, and 752.401: Principal statutory requirements and coverage. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except those with veterans' preference.”
a. Add the following to section IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation:“Chapter 75, sections 7501(1), 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), and 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii); Adverse Actions—Definitions. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except for those with veterans' preference.”
b. Add the following as the final paragraph to section IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation:“Part 752, sections, 752.201, and 752.401: Principal statutory requirements and coverage. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except those with veterans' preference.”.
a. Add the following to section IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation:“Chapter 75, sections 7501(1), 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), and 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii); Adverse Actions—Definitions. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except for those with veterans' preference.”
b. Add the following to section IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation:“Part 752, sections, 752.201, and 752.401: Principal statutory requirements and coverage. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except those with veterans' preference.”
a. Add the following to section IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation:“Chapter 75, sections 7501(1), 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), and 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii); Adverse Actions—Definitions. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except for those with veterans' preference.”
b. Add the following as the final paragraph to section IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation:“Part 752, sections 752.201, and 752.401: Principal statutory requirements and coverage. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary
a. Add the following to section IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation:“Chapter 75, sections 7501(1), 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), and 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii); Adverse Actions—Definitions. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except for those with veterans' preference.”
b. Add the following to section IX. Required Waivers to Law and Regulation:“Part 752, sections 752.201, and 752.401: Principal statutory requirements and coverage. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except those with veterans' preference.”
a. Add the following as the final box on the left side of Appendix A: Required Waivers to Law and Regulation chart:“Chapter 75, sections 7501(1), 7511(a)(1)(A)(ii), and 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii); Adverse Actions—Definitions. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except for those with veterans' preference.”
b. Add the following on the right side of the information entered in 6.a. above to Appendix A: Required Waivers to Law and Regulation chart:“Part 752, sections, 752.201, and 752.401: Principal statutory requirements and coverage. Waived to the extent necessary to allow extended probationary periods and to permit termination during the extended probationary period without using adverse action procedures for those individuals serving a probationary period under an initial appointment except those with veterans' preference.”
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold an informal conference followed by a public hearing on Wednesday, December 5, 2012. The hearing will be part of the Commission's regularly scheduled business meeting. The conference session and business meeting both are open to the public and will be held at the Commission's office building located at 25 State Police Drive, West Trenton, New Jersey.
The morning conference session will begin at 11:00 a.m. and will include (a) a report by staff on the Commission's Information Technology (IT) Upgrade and Water Charging Program On-Line Reporting System; and (b) an update by a representative of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District on development of a Delaware Estuary Regional Sediment Management Plan.
Individuals in need of an accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act who wish to attend the informational meeting, conference session or hearings should contact the Commission Secretary directly at 609-883-9500 ext. 203 or through the Telecommunications
Department of Education (ED), Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 22, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Model Demonstration Projects on Promoting Reentry Success through Continuity of Educational Opportunities (PRSCEO) Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2013.
More than 700,000 incarcerated individuals leave Federal and State prisons each year.
This negative cycle of release and return costs States more than $50 billion annually.
Among the male U.S. population aged 20 to 34 without a high school credential, 1 in 3 black men, 1 in 8 white men, and 1 in 14 Hispanic men are incarcerated.
Although most State and Federal prisons offer adult education and career and technical education programs, and some offer postsecondary education, participation in these programs has not kept pace with the growing prison population.
Low-skilled individuals who move in and out of prison may not be able to access well-integrated and sequenced educational programs. Coordination and communication among educational programs and their partner related service providers, both inside and outside of correctional institutions, are essential to facilitating educational participation and progress. A lack of coordination and communication can result in such barriers as differing standardized assessments and curriculum and lack of articulation agreements, making student transfers from one program to another difficult. Other barriers to access to well-integrated and sequenced educational programs include:
• Misinterpretation of Federal and State privacy laws and insufficient links among data systems, making it difficult for programs to get a comprehensive picture of their students' backgrounds, avoid duplication of effort, and track outcomes.
• A perception among correctional officials (e.g., wardens, parole and probation officers, and court officials) and policymakers that individuals in the correctional institutions should not receive educational services; this, in turn, can make it difficult to require student participation and establish supportive education and reentry policies.
• Inadequate staff training, resulting in ineffective educational services.
• Limited funds, leading to long waiting lists for programs.
A growing body of evidence
For this purpose the Department supported the development of the Reentry Education Model, which illustrates an education continuum for bridging the gap between prison- and community-based education and training programs.
Through this competition, which is carried out under part JJ of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3797dd(a)(3), the Secretary of Education will support the establishment and operation of projects that will test and demonstrate the benefits of using the Reentry Education Model, including implementation of the Reentry Education Model infrastructure elements.
Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA)-funded eligible agencies,
Absolute Priority 1 is:
To meet this priority, an applicant must—
(a) Propose a project that:
(1) Implements the Reentry Education Model, including all infrastructure elements, to promote education engagement and continuity for individuals during their reentry process spanning correctional institution settings and community settings; and
(2) Serves correctional institution residents (prisoners) and community correctional clients (e.g., parolees, probationers, or inmates in halfway house settings); and
(b) Implement a project plan (which must be included in the application) that:
(1) Identifies the partner entities described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of the
(2) Describes the process the applicant will use for developing an individual educational plan that addresses an individual student's needs; and
(3) Identifies formal tools of transition that the applicant will implement or has already implemented, including explicit interagency agreements that can facilitate the transition among educational programs and across correctional institution and community settings.
Absolute Priority 2 is:
To meet this priority, an applicant must either be an AEFLA-funded eligible agency,
The Secretary is also establishing two competitive preference priorities for this competition. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) the Department will award up to an additional five points for Competitive Preference Priority 1 and up to an additional five points for Competitive Preference Priority 2. The
Competitive Preference Priority 1 is:
To meet this priority, an applicant must provide evidence of prior implementation of the infrastructure element
Competitive Preference Priority 2 is:
To meet this priority, an applicant must provide evidence of the prior implementation (at least one year prior to date of application) of the infrastructure element,
The project plan submitted within the application must include:
(a) A description of how the applicant will implement or already has implemented the Reentry Education Model. Specifically the application must include a description of the following:
(1) The elements of the proposed project, including:
(i) A correctional institution student intake protocol that includes assessment, individual educational plan development, and the recording of information in a centralized, electronic data system;
(ii) Educational services with appropriate alignment and content, including basic educational services for low-skilled adults, within correctional facilities and within community-based educational programs for reentering formerly incarcerated or otherwise sanctioned individuals;
(iii) Strategies describing proven successful or promising practices for:
(A) Improving student outcomes in the attainment of educational achievement levels,
(B) Increasing the number of students completing their educational programs, and
(C) Increasing the number of students attaining their educational goals;
(iv) Pre-release procedures and protocols to support the transition of students, including low-skilled students, from correctional institution educational programs to community-based educational programs; and
(v) Intake processes and procedures for the community-based educational services that include—
(A) Connecting incarcerated individuals with community-based services by starting the services in the correctional institution,
(B) Timely transfer of student data and educational plans, which are updated as necessary and appropriate, and
(C) A process of communication among all partner entities and with the individual students, including a point person for tracking individual progress to the extent practicable and for tracking students transferring to other adult basic education or adult secondary education programs, postsecondary education, training programs, or occupational training programs.
(2) Reentry Education Model infrastructure elements that the applicant will implement or already has implemented, which must include:
(i) Monetary and other resources,
(ii) Strategic partnerships,
(iii) Electronic data system,
(iv) Staff training,
(v) Reentry policies, and
(vi) Evaluation processes.
(3) Implementation components, including—
(i) The methodology that the applicant will use for selecting partner entities;
(ii) Identification of the partner entities, which
(A) Must include—
(I) One or more community-based educational service providers, at least one of which must offer adult basic education services or English literacy programs, and
(II) One or more correctional institution education program sites, at least one of which must offer adult basic education services or English literacy programs; and
(B) May include—
(I) One or more community colleges, or technical colleges,
(II) One or more occupational training providers,
(III) One or more community correction facilities or organizations, and
(IV) One or more intermediary prisoner reentry service providers, such as providers of mentoring programs.
(iii) For each partner entity selected in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) and (a)(3)(ii)(B), descriptions of—
(A) The populations served by the partner entity; and
(B) The expected contributions of the partner entity to the proposed project and the extent to which each partner entity has committed to the implementation and sustainability of the project.
(iv) Strategies for identifying and allocating human resources among the partner entities as needed to implement the proposed project;
(v) The applicant's approach to initial and ongoing personnel development or training for personnel involved in implementing the proposed project; and
(4) Sustainability components, including a plan for:
(i) Assessing the responsibilities for project maintenance and support among the partner entities at the participating project sites by the end of the project period in order to continue services after the project period ends; and
(ii) Continuing personnel training among the partner entities in order to build capacity to implement the Reentry Education Model during the grant project period and to ensure that the project is sustained after the grant project period ends.
(b) A detailed timeline for implementing the proposed project.
(c) A plan for collecting data that will be submitted as required by the Department to the Department's
(1) The numbers of individuals who maintain educational participation while transitioning from and among correctional institutions, including to community correctional settings and other community-based educational programs; and
(2) The numbers of adults who acquire basic skills (including English language acquisition), complete secondary education, and transition to further education, training, or to work as indicated by attainment of educational functioning levels, attainment of high school credentials, enrollment in postsecondary education or training programs, and attainment of employment.
(d) A description of the project's logic model, consistent with the Reentry Education Model,
(1) Changes to policies, procedures, or data collection systems, and
(2) Changes related to student information or record sharing, referrals for services, educational services, assessments, and transition planning.
(e) A proposed budget that includes estimates of the costs of:
(1) Implementing the proposed project, including but not limited to—
(i) Personnel, and
(ii) The various components of the proposed project; and
(2) Attendance of up to two attendees at a required one-and-one-half-day meeting in Washington, DC.
(f) A description of the applicant's formative evaluation plan, consistent with the proposed project's logic model, and consistent with the Reentry Education Model and student data collection plan, that:
(1) Includes information on how these data described in paragraph (c) will be reviewed by the project staff prior to finalizing data collection plans and again prior to submitting those data to the Department (consistent with the timeline in this section), and how they will be used during the course of the project to adjust the project or its implementation in order to enhance the project's outcomes, generalizability, and potential for sustainability; and
(2) Includes, as appropriate, periodic collection of student and system data in addition to other data relating to fidelity of implementation, stakeholder acceptability, and the types of facilities in which the services are provided (e.g., correctional institution, community center, library).
To meet the general requirements of this proposed competition, each applicant must propose to conduct the following activities:
(a) Commit to work with the Department's independent evaluator
(1) Measure the fidelity of implementation of the Reentry Education Model; and
(2) Collect and assess the stakeholders' (e.g., service providers, teachers, case workers, program administrators, clients) feedback on the efficacy of the Reentry Education Model components, processes, and outcomes.
(b) Participate in program activities and collaborative efforts among grantees, Department staff, and the Department-identified technical assistance provider to disseminate Reentry Education Model information to such entities as adult education providers, correctional institutions, community-based organizations, community colleges, professional organizations, and other entities identified by the Department.
(c) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with Department-funded or other Department-designated projects in order to share information on successful strategies and challenges of the Reentry Education Model implementation across correctional and community settings.
(d) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the Department project officer and the administrators of other projects funded under this competition.
(e) Submit data, when and as specified by the Department, to the independent evaluator designated by the Department in order to evaluate the Reentry Education Model.
42 U.S.C. 3797dd(a)(3).
The regulations in 34 CFR parts 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.191C.
To obtain a copy from the program office, contact the persons listed under
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under
2. a.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative [Part III] to no more than 25 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, documentation for meeting priorities, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section [Part III].
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that exceed the page limit.
b.
Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the PRSCEO program, your application may include business information that the applicant considers proprietary. The Department's regulations define “business information” in 34 CFR 5.11.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public upon request, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the persons listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active CCR registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active. The CCR registration
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a. Electronic Submission of Applications.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
You may access the electronic grant application for PRSCEO at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the persons listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension
Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: John Linton or Zina Watkins, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11021, Washington, DC 20202. FAX: (202) 245-7837.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department:
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1. Selection Criteria:
The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed in the following paragraphs. The maximum score for all the selection criteria is 90 points. The maximum score for each selection criterion is indicated in parentheses with the criterion. The selection criteria are as follows:
(1)
(a) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
(b) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers—
(i) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population; and
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
(2)
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers—
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
(ii) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include adequate quality controls and, as appropriate, repeated testing of products; and
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will be coordinated with similar or related efforts, and with other appropriate community, State, and Federal resources.
(3)
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the project personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability;
(c) In addition, the Secretary considers—
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator; and
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(4)
(a) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.
(b) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—
(i) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
(ii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project; and
(iii) The potential for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing program of the agency or organization at the end of Federal funding.
(5)
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;
(ii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project; and
(iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(6)
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers—
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project; and
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
(1) The percentage of adults enrolled in English literacy programs served by the PRSCEO program who acquire the level of English language skills needed to complete the levels of instruction in which they enrolled.
(2) The percentage of adults enrolled in adult basic education programs served by the PRSCEO program who acquire the level of basic skills needed to complete the level of instruction in which they enrolled.
(3) The percentage of all enrolled adults in the applicable population served by the PRSCEO program who pass all General Equivalency Diploma (GED) tests, or obtain secondary school diplomas.
(4) The percentage of adults in the applicable population served by the PRSCEO program who enter postsecondary education or a training program.
Under the Government Performance and Results Act, the Department has established goals and measures for the recidivism of individuals who have been in correctional institutions. The measure related to recidivism is—
(5) The percentage of adults served by the PRSCEO program who, within one year of release, have criminal justice system involvement (arrest, re-conviction, violation of parole conditions, or return to incarceration) compared with the percentage of similarly situated individuals not served by the PRSCEO program.
Grantees will be responsible for providing data to support evaluation of these objectives.
John Linton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11021, PCP, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-6592 or by email:
If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
U.S. Department of Energy.
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to OMB for an extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program, OMB Control Number 1910-5112. This information collection request covers the information from DOE and DOE contractors that are subject to the Department's “Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program,” title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 850 (10 C.F.R. pt. 850). The regulations contained in the Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program have been promulgated under authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Department of Energy Organization Act.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before December 20, 2012. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 395-4650.
Written comments should be sent to theDOE Desk Officer,Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,Office of Management and Budget,New Executive Office Building,Room 10102, 735 17th StreetNW., Washington, DC 20503,and to Jacqueline D. Rogers, U.S. Department of Energy; Office of Health, Safety and Security, HS-11; 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4714, by fax at 202-586-8548, or by email at:
Request for additional information should be directed to Jacqueline D. Rogers, U.S. Department of Energy; Office of Health, Safety and Security, HS-11; 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4714, by fax at 202-586-8548, or by email at
This information collection request contains:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2201, and the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7191 and 7254.
Department of Energy.
Notice of meeting.
A meeting involving members of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) in connection with the IEA's Emergency Disruption Simulation Exercise (ERE6) will be held on November 26-28, 2012,
November 26-28, 2012.
9, rue de la Fédération, Paris, France and 16, rue Jean Rey, Paris.
Diana D. Clark, Assistant General for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-3417.
In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meeting is provided:
The ERE6 sessions will be held from 2:00 p.m.-5:30 p.m. on November 26, from 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. on November 27, and from 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. on November 28. The purpose of ERE6 is to train IEA Government delegates in the use of IEA emergency response procedures by reacting to a hypothetical oil supply disruption scenario.
The agenda for ERE6 is under the control of the IEA. ERE6 will involve break-out groups, the constitution of which is under the control of the IEA. The IEA anticipates that individual break-out groups will not include multiple IAB or IEA Reporting Company representatives that would qualify them as separate “meetings” within the meaning of the Voluntary Agreement and Plan of Action to Implement the International Energy Program. It is expected that the IEA will adopt the following agenda:
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meeting of the IAB is open to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Markets (SOM); representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, the SOM, or the IEA.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC-714 (Annual Electric Balancing Authority Area and Planning Area Report) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by December 20, 2012.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0140, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC12-17-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission uses the collected data to analyze power system operations along with its regulatory functions. These analyses estimate the effect of changes in power system operations resulting from the installation of a new generating unit or plant, transmission facilities, energy transfers between systems, and/or new points of
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $2,995,016 [19,053 hours ÷ 2,080
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC-715 (Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by December 20, 2012.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0171, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC12-16-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
• Contact information for the FERC-715;
• Base case power flow data (if it does not participate in the development and use of regional power flow data);
• Transmission system maps and diagrams used by the respondent for transmission planning;
• A detailed description of the transmission planning reliability criteria used to evaluate system performance for time frames and planning horizons used in regional and corporate planning;
• A detailed description of the respondent's transmission planning assessment practices (including, but not limited to, how reliability criteria are applied and the steps taken in
• A detailed evaluation of the respondent's anticipated system performance as measured against its stated reliability criteria using its stated assessment practices.
The FERC-715 enables the Commission to use the information as part of their regulatory oversight functions which includes:
• The review of rates and charges;
• The disposition of jurisdictional facilities;
• The consolidation and mergers;
• The adequacy of supply and;
• Reliability of nation's transmission grid
The FERC-715 enables the Commission to facilitate and resolve transmission disputes. Additionally, the Office of Electric Reliability (OER) uses the FERC-715 data to help protect and improve the reliability and security of the nation's bulk power system. OER oversees the development and review of mandatory reliability and security standards and ensures compliance with the approved standards by the users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system. OER also monitors and addresses issues concerning the nation's bulk power system including assessments of resource adequacy and reliability.
Without the FERC-715 data, the Commission would be unable to evaluate planned projects or requests related to transmission.
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $2,995,016 [17,600 hours ÷ 2,080
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.
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
All documents (original and seven copies) filed by paper should be sent to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-4815-010) on any comments or motions filed.
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 whose name appears 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. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers.
p.
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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that during the month of October 2012, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).
Take notice that on November 9, 2012, pursuant to section 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure 18 CFR
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of Availability of draft recommendations of Western/DOE Joint Outreach Team.
The Western Area Power Administration (Western), a power marketing administration (PMA) of the Department of Energy (DOE), is publishing the draft recommendations of the Western/DOE Joint Outreach Team (JOT) for review and comment by Western's customers, Tribes, stakeholders, and the public at large.
To ensure consideration, all comments should be received by Western at the address below on or before 4 p.m. MST January 22, 2013.
Send written comments to the Joint Outreach Team at:
For further information please contact Ronald E. Moulton, Transmission Services Manager, Western Area Power Administration, orJennifer DeCesaro, Special Advisor, Renewable Energy and Transmission, Department of Energy, via email at
Western's mission is to market and deliver reliable, cost-based Federal hydroelectric power and related services to its customers. The Federal government, through four Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs), owns and operates approximately 33,730 miles of transmission lines, overlaying approximately 42 percent of the continental United States. Of that total, Western owns approximately 17,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines with a footprint covering 15 states in the central and western U.S. To facilitate the transition of America's transmission system to a more resilient and flexible grid while reducing costs to consumers, Western and DOE formed the JOT. The team conducted a series of informational webinars, as well as stakeholder outreach workshops in five locations and listening sessions in six locations in Western's service territory with over 500 participants registering to provide input on the process and recommendations. The information gathered, combined with written stakeholder comments and the expertise of Western and DOE subject matter experts, informed the development of the draft recommendations that are now being published for public comment. Development of the final recommendations will be informed by comments received in response to this Notice.
The draft recommendations are available for review and comment at Western's Web site at
1. Name and general description of the entity submitting the comment.
2. Name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the entity's primary contact.
3. Identification of any specific recommendation the comment references.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) Program” (EPA ICR No. 2380.20, OMB Control No. 2060-0637) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before January 22, 2013.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161 online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Geanetta Heard, Fuels Compliance Center, 6406J Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9017, fax number: 202-343-2800; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another
Form Numbers:
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) and section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of a proposed administrative
Settling Parties: Parties that have elected to settle their liability with EPA at this time are as follows: A Finkl & Sons Co., AAMCO Transmissions Incorporated, Abbott Laboratories, Ace Orthopedic Manufacturing, Inc., Active Magnetic Inspection, Inc., Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District, Adventist Health, All Diameter Grinding Inc., Allied Pacific Metal Stamping, Alloys Cleaning Inc., Alzeta Corporation, Ambassador Auto, Amercom-Atlantic Research Corp, American Chemical Etching, American Magnetics Corporation, American Rubber Manufacturing, American Security Products Co., Anacapa Marine Services, Analogy Devices, Inc as Successor to Precision Monolithics, Analytical Systems, Division of Marion Labs, Anja Engineering Corporation, Antioch Unified School District, Apex Drum Company, Inc., APL Limited, Aratex Services, Inc., ARB, Inc., Architectural Plywood Inc., Arlon Products, Arnco, Asbury Oil Co., Associated Spring Corporation, Astro Plating, Atlas Radiator Service, Autologic Inc., Avantek,Babcock Inc., BASF Corporation, Bausch & Lomb, Beauman Trust/John L. Hunter & Associates, Better Bilt Aluminum, Big Creek Lumber Company, Blount International, Bonita Packing Co., Brown and Caldwell, Brunswick Corporation, Cal Doran, California Acrylic Industries, California Oil Recyclers, Calnap Tanning Co, Calstar Motors, Inc., Cal-Tron Plating, Caputo Associates, Cargill, Inc., Carter Precision Parts, Inc., Carter-Wallace Inc., Cascade Die Casting Group, Inc., Cate School, Certified Grocers, Chase Packaging Corporation, Chemrex Coatings Corporation, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, CHM Manufacturing West, Inc., Chrome Nickel Plating, Circle Seal, City of Barstow, City of Buena Park, City of Chino, City of Costa Mesa, City of Glendale, City of Hope National Medical Center, City of Manteca, City of Ontario, City of Port Hueneme, City of San Rafael, City of Santa Fe Springs, Commercial Plating and Engineering Corporation, Inc., Concorde Interstate Battery Co., Connor Spring Manufacturing, Continental Heat Treating, Continental Manufacturing Co., Cook Paint Company, Cool Transports, Inc., Coral Chemical Company, Costco, County of Nevada, Crest Beverage, LLC, Crossfield Products Corporation, Crown Disposal Inc., Custom Chemical Formulators, Inc., Dayton-Granger, Inc., Del Mar Window Coverings, DeVincenci Metal Products, Inc., Disk Media, Inc., Downey Grinding, DuBois Chemicals, Dunn School, DV Industries, Inc., Dynacast Inc., Dynatech Corporation, Dynatem/R C Circuits, Eaz-Lift Spring Corporation, El Paso Electric Co., Electrolurgy, Inc., Electron Plating III, Inc., Electronic Chrome Co., Inc., Entenmann's/Orowheat, Eva Fkiaras, Evans Tank Lines, Exel Corp./Exel Microelectronics, Inc., Fabri Cote, Farmers Insurance Company, Feather River Forest Products Company, Federal Manufacturing Corporation, Fibre Container Corporation, Fifield Land Company, Film Salvage Company, Fontana Wood Preserving, Inc., Formica Corporation, Frito-Lay, Inc, Fritz Burns Foundation, FUJI Hunt USA, Future Foam, Gaehwiler M. Construction Inc., Garner Glass Company, GCG Corporation, General Chemical Corporation, Geophysical Service, Inc., Glenair, Inc., Gold Fields Operating Company, Golden State Foods Corporation, H.A. Luallen, Inc., H.G. Fenton Company, Hannibal Industries, Harbor Diesel and Equipment,Inc, Hartson's Ambulance Service, Hermetic Seal Corporation, Hill Refrigeration Corporation, Hi-Rel Connectors, Inc., Holt Inc., Hosokawa Micron International, Inc., House of Packaging, Humana, Inc., Hyundai Electronics America, International Rectifier Corporation, Irv Guinn, J.B. Dewar, Inc., James Jones Company, Johnson Controls, Inc, Kern High School District, Kern Oil & Refining Company, Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., Kingsbacher-Murphy, Wesco Division, Lamsco West Inc., Layne Western, Leisure Village Association, Inc., Libby Owens Ford Co, Liquid Investment, Inc., Loctite Corporation, Lompoc Unified School District, Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, Lucas Valley Properties, Inc., Macklanburg-Duncan Company, MAPO, Maruichi America Corp, McDermott, Inc., MDT Biologic Company, Meggitt-USA, Mestek, Inc., MH Golden, Micro Metallics Corp, Micro Power Systems, Mid-State Industrial Insulation, Inc., Moshe Silagi, NCR Corporation, Neal Feay Company, Nelson Name Plate Company, NH3 Service Company, Inc., Norac Company, Nor-Cal Frozen Foods, Nortek Inc, Northern California Power Agency, Norton & Son of California, Nova Transportation Corp, Ojai Oil Company, O'Neil Data Systems, Inc., Orange Heights Orange Association, Oregon State University, Pacific Southwest Mortgage, Pacific Holding Company, Packaging Industries, Park Engineering and Manufacturing Co., Pebble Beach Company, Petaluma Joint Union High School District, Peterson Tractor Company, Pictsweet Company, Plastic Dress-Up Company, Polycore Electronics, Inc., Polymetrics Inc., Precision Tube Bending, Quest Diagnostics, Ramona's Mexican Food Products, RBC Bearings, Redman Equipment & Manufacturing Co, Redwood General Tire, Regillus Homeowners Association, Relton Corporation, Replacement Parts Manufacturing, Republic Fasteners Mfg. Corp, Reuland Electric Company, Reynolds & Reynolds Company, Richmond Honda, Rolls Scaffold & Equipment Inc., Rose Hills Memorial Park, Royal Paper Box Company, Royal Rubber & Manufacturing Company, S&K Plating, Inc., S. J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc., SAE International, San Francisco Newspaper Agency, San Ysidro Ranch, Sandberg Furniture Mfg, Inc., Santa Barbara Metropolitan, Santa Clara Unified School District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Maria Ford, Santa Maria Valley Warehouse, Sav-On Plating, Schlumberger Well Service, Sealright Co., Inc., Sepulveda Building Materials, Sheller-Globe Corporation, Sierra Aluminum Company, Sierra Circuits, Inc., Signet Armorlite, Inc., Smith Brothers Crane Rental, Inc., Snap-on Industrial, Southern California Gardeners' Federation, Inc., Speedy Circuits, Inc., Stabile Plating Co. Inc., State of Hawaii, State of Oregon Department of Corrections, State of Oregon Department
EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement until December 20, 2012. EPA will consider all comments it receives during this period, and may modify or withdraw consent to the settlement if any comments disclose facts or considerations indicating that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Public Meeting: In accordance with section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d), commenters may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area. The deadline for requesting a public meeting is December 4, 2012. Requests for a public meeting may be made by contacting Karen Goldberg by email at
Written comments should be addressed to Karen Goldberg, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street (mail code RC-3), San Francisco, California 94105-3901, or may be faxed to her at (415) 947-3570 or sent by email to
Additional information about the Casmalia Disposal Site and about the proposed settlement may be obtained on the EPA-maintained Casmalia Web site at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. 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 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 control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 22, 2013. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 14, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction Incudes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
By Direction of the Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning subcontracting plans/individual subcontract report (SF-294).
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before January 22, 2013.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0006, Subcontracting Plans/Individual Subcontract Report (SF-294), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Karlos Morgan, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA (202) 501-2364 or email
In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 19.702, contractors receiving a contract for more than the simplified acquisition threshold agree to have small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business, HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns participate in the performance of the contract as far as practicable. Contractors receiving a contract or a modification to a contract expected to exceed $650,000 ($1,500,000 for construction) must submit a subcontracting plan that provides maximum practicable opportunities for the above named concerns. Specific elements required to be included in the plan are specified in section 8(d) of the Small Business Act and implemented in FAR subpart 19.7.
In conjunction with the subcontracting plan requirements, contractors must submit semi-annual reports of their small business subcontracting progress to the government. With the exception of those contracts noted in FAR 4.606(c)(5) which states “Actions that, pursuant to other authority, will not be entered in FPDS (e.g., reporting of the information would compromise national security)”, contractors must use the electronic Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) in lieu of the Standard Form 294, Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts. Those contract actions noted in FAR 4.606(c)(5) will continue to use the Standard Form 294.
The ISR in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) is the electronic equivalent of the Standard Form 294, Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts. The Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System streamlines the small business subcontracting program reporting process and provides the data to agencies in a manner that enables them to more effectively manage the program.
Based on information from eSRS and an estimate of the use of eSRS, an upward adjustment is being made to the number of respondents, but a downward adjustment is being made to the average burden hours for reporting and recordkeeping per response. As a result, a downward adjustment is being made to the estimated annual reporting burden since the notice regarding an extension to this clearance published in the
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension of an existing OMB information clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of an existing information collection requirement regarding Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before January 22, 2013.
Submit comments identified by
•
•
•
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, at telephone (202) 501-0650 or via email to
FAR 22.501 prescribes policies and procedures to implement Executive Order 13502, February 6, 2009 which encourages Federal agencies to consider the use of a project labor agreement (PLA), as they may decide appropriate, on large-scale construction projects, where the total cost to the Government is more than $25 million, in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement. A PLA is a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project. FAR 22.503(b) provides that an agency may, if appropriate, require that every contractor and subcontractor engaged in construction on the project agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more labor organizations if the agency decides that the use of project labor agreements will—
(1) Advance the Federal Government's interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement, producing labor-management stability, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, labor and employment standards, and other matters; and,
(2) Be consistent with law.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating data that were included in ten (10) published papers, one (1) submitted manuscript, seven (7) grant applications, and three (3) progress reports over a period of ten (10) years. Respondent reported experimental data for knockout mice that did not exist in five (5) grant applications and three (3) progress reports and also falsified and/or fabricated images in 45 figures included in the following:
As a result of its investigation, UK recommended that the publication(s) listed above be retracted or corrected.
Specifically, ORI finds that Respondent:
• Falsely reported in Figure 14 and associated text in NIH grant applications R01 HL07897601 and -01A1 that experiments were performed to determine if endothelial-specific caveolin-1 null mice were protected from saturated fatty acid-induced atherosclerosis, when these mutant mice did not exist in the laboratory at the time; Dr. Smart also falsely reported the use of these mice in related progress reports R01 HL078976-02, -03, and -04 and in three (3) additional NIH grant applications: Figure 11 in R01 HL088150-01, Figure 11 in U54 CA116853, and Figure 9 in DK063025-01A2
• Falsified and/or fabricated images in NIH grant application R01 HL078976-01A1 by duplicating and altering bands in 14 Western blot images and one (1) RT-PCR image included in Figures 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15; false Western blots were also included in the earlier version of the grant application R01 HL078976-01, Figures 3, 6, 11, 13, and 14
• Falsified and/or fabricated Western blots and one (1) RNase protection assay by duplicating and altering bands in thirty-three (33) figures included in ten (10) published papers, one (1) submitted manuscript, and two (2) NIH grant applications. Specifically, false or fabricated images were included in:
< Figures 5 and 7,
< Figure 4B,
< Figures 2A, 3A, 6A, and 7A,
< Figures 3, 5, and 6,
< Figure 2A,
< Figures 2A/B/C and 4A/B,
< Figures 2B/D and 4,
< Figures 1A and 5B,
< Figures 1A, 2A/B, and 4A,
< Figure 1B,
< Figures 2A, 4, 6B, 7, and 8 in a submitted manuscript
< Figures 7A, 8A, 9A, and 10B in grant application HL093155-01
< Figures 4, 7, and 13 in grant application HL068509-01A1.
Dr. Smart has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement and has voluntarily agreed for a period of seven (7) years, beginning on October 23, 2012:
(1) To exclude himself from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions” pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376
(2) To exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant; and
(3) To request that the following publications be retracted or corrected:
Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.
Federal employees will not be considered for membership. Members may be invited to serve up to four-year terms. Consideration is given to representation from diverse geographic areas, both genders, all ethnic and racial groups, and the disabled. Nominees must be U.S. citizens.
The following information must be submitted for each candidate: name, affiliation, address, telephone number, and current curriculum vitae. Email addresses are requested if available.
Nominations should be sent, in writing, and postmarked by November 30, 2012 to: Vernellia Johnson, Management and Program Analyst, Public Health Surveillance and Informatics Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS E-97, Atlanta, Georgia 30333 or via email to
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Biennial publication of allotment percentages for States under the Title IV-B subpart 1, Child Welfare Services State Grants Program (CFDA No. 93.645).
As required by section 423(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 623(c)), the Department is publishing the allotment percentage for each State under the Title IV-B Subpart 1, Child Welfare Services State Grants Program. Under section 423(a), the allotment percentages are one of the factors used in the computation of the Federal grants awarded under the Program.
Deborah Bell, Grants Fiscal Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Administration, Administration for Children and Families, telephone (202) 401-4611.
The allotment percentage for each State is determined on the basis of paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 423 of the Act. These figures are available on the ACF homepage on the Internet:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by January 22, 2013.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Jonna Capezzuto,Office of Information Management,Food and Drug Administration,1350 Piccard Dr.,PIFO, Rm. 410B,Rockville, MD 20850,301-796-3794.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Under section 512(b)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(b)(3)), any person intending to file a new animal drug application (NADA) or supplemental NADA or a request for an investigational exemption under section 512(j) of the FD&C Act is entitled to one or more conferences with FDA to reach an agreement acceptable to FDA establishing a submission or investigational requirement. FDA and industry have found that these meetings have increased the efficiency of the drug development and drug review processes.
Section 514.5 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the procedures for requesting, conducting, and documenting presubmission conferences. Section 514.5(b) describes the information that must be included in a letter submitted by a potential applicant requesting a presubmission conference, including a proposed agenda and a list of expected participants. Section 514.5(d) describes the information that must be provided by the potential applicant to FDA at least 30 days prior to a presubmission conference. This information includes a detailed agenda, a copy of any materials to be presented at the conference, a list of proposed indications and, if available, a copy of the proposed labeling for the product under consideration, and a copy of any background material that provides scientific rationale to support the potential applicant's position on issues listed in the agenda for the conference. Section 514.5(f) discusses the content of the memorandum of conference that will be prepared by FDA and gives the potential applicant an opportunity to seek correction to or clarification of the memorandum.
Under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act, any person may file a NADA seeking approval to legally market a new animal drug. Section 512(b)(1) sets forth the information required to be submitted in a NADA. FDA allows applicants to submit a complete NADA or to submit information in support of a NADA for phased review followed by submission of an administrative NADA when FDA finds all the applicable technical sections are complete.
Section 514.1 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations interprets section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act and further describes the information that must be submitted as part of a NADA and the manner and form in which the NADA must be assembled and submitted. The application must include safety and effectiveness data, proposed labeling, product manufacturing information, and where necessary, complete information on food safety (including microbial food safety) and any methods used to determine residues of drug chemicals in edible tissue from food producing animals. Guidance #152 outlines a risk assessment approach for evaluating the microbial food safety of antimicrobial new animal drugs. FDA requests that an applicant accompany NADAs, supplemental NADAs, and requests for phased review of data to support NADAs, with the Form FDA 356V to ensure efficient and accurate processing of information to support new animal drug approval.
FDA estimates the burden of the collections of information as follows:
Based on the number of sponsors subject to animal drug user fees, FDA estimates that there was an average of 169 annual respondents during the 5 fiscal years, from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2012, on which these estimates were made. We use this estimate consistently throughout the table and calculate the “total annual responses” by multiplying the number of responses per respondent by number of respondents.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Guidance for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors: IRB Responsibilities for Reviewing the Qualifications of Investigators, Adequacy of Research Sites, and the Determination of Whether an IND/IDE Is Needed.” The draft guidance announced in this notice is intended to assist institutional review boards (IRBs), clinical investigators, and sponsors involved in clinical investigations of FDA-regulated products in fulfilling responsibilities related to reviewing the qualifications of investigators, adequacy of research sites, and the determination of whether an investigational new drug (IND) application or investigational device exemption (IDE) is needed in order to assure the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects in clinical investigations.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by January 22, 2013.
Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 (1-888-463-6332 or 301-796-3400); or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448 (1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800); or the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4622, Silver Spring, MD 20993 (1-800-638-2041 or 301-796-7100). Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Doreen Kezer, Office of Good Clinical Practice, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5109, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8524.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Guidance for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors: IRB Responsibilities for Reviewing the Qualifications of Investigators, Adequacy of Research Sites, and the Determination of Whether an IND/IDE Is Needed.” This guidance is intended to assist IRBs, clinical investigators, and sponsors involved in clinical investigations of FDA-regulated
FDA is issuing this as a draft guidance. Although many of these recommendations have appeared in other FDA guidance documents, FDA has compiled the information here in order to assure that all IRBs are aware of and have access to it. The guidance also explains how IRBs may efficiently fulfill these important responsibilities.
To enhance human subject protection and reduce regulatory burden, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and FDA have been actively working to harmonize the Agencies' regulatory requirements and guidance for human subject research. This guidance document was developed as a part of these efforts and in consultation with OHRP. In addition, FDA acknowledges HHS's publication of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators,” in the
The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's Good Guidance Practices (GGPs) regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft guidance includes information collections provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information referenced in this guidance that are related to IRB recordkeeping requirements under 21 CFR 56.115 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0130; the collections of information under 21 CFR Part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and the collections of information under 21 CFR Part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078. In accordance with the PRA, prior to publication of any final guidance document, FDA intends to solicit public comment and obtain OMB approval for any information collections recommended in this guidance that are new or that would represent material modifications to these previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations.” This document revises and updates the draft guidance entitled “Electronic Source Documentation in Clinical Investigations.” This revised draft document provides guidance to sponsors, contract research organizations (CROs), data management centers, clinical investigators, and others involved in capturing, reviewing, and archiving electronic source data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations. The revised draft guidance promotes capturing source data in electronic form, and it is intended to assist in ensuring the reliability, quality, integrity, and traceability of electronic source data.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that FDA considers your comment on the revised draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance within January 22, 2013.
Submit written requests for single copies of the revised draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448; Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; and Office of Critical Path Programs, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 4173, Silver Spring,
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Ronald Fitzmartin, Office of Planning and Informatics, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1160, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5333.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations.” This document revises and updates the draft guidance entitled “Electronic Source Documentation in Clinical Investigations.” This revised draft document provides guidance to sponsors, CROs, data management centers, clinical investigators, and others involved in capturing, reviewing, and archiving electronic source data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations. The revised draft guidance promotes capturing source data in electronic form, and it is intended to assist in ensuring the reliability, quality, integrity, and traceability of electronic source data.
With the use of computerized systems for capturing clinical study data, it is common to find at least some source data recorded electronically. Common examples include clinical data initially recorded in electronic health records maintained by hospitals and institutions, electronic laboratory reports, electronic medical images from devices, and electronic diaries provided by study subjects.
Capturing source data electronically should help to: (1) Eliminate unnecessary duplication of data; (2) reduce the possibility for transcription errors; (3) encourage entering source data at the time of a subject's visit; (4) eliminate transcribing source data before entering the data into an electronic data capture system; (5) promote real-time data access for review; and (6) ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data.
In the
• Identifying and specifying authorized source data originators;
• Creating data element identifiers to facilitate sponsors, FDA, and other authorized parties in examining the audit trail of data;
• Capturing source data into the eCRF using either manual or electronic capture methods; and
• Investigator responsibilities with respect to reviewing and retaining electronic data.
The revised draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CDR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on capturing, using, and archiving electronic data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
The draft guidance refers to collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The draft guidance pertains to sponsors, clinical investigators, contract research organizations, and others involved in capturing, reviewing, and archiving electronic source data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations and who send certain information to FDA or others, or keep certain records and make them available to FDA inspectors. The information collection discussed in the draft guidance is contained in our investigational new drug regulations (21 CFR 312) and approved under OMB control number 0910-0014, including §§ 312.62(b) and 312.58(a). In addition, the collection of information in 21 CFR part 11, as discussed in the draft guidance, is approved under OMB control number 0910-0303. OMB approval of the information collection in the guidance entitled “Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations,” as mentioned in the draft guidance, is discussed in the May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26638),
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of guidance for industry #217 entitled “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Anticoccidial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals.” The guidance provides guidance to industry for designing and conducting clinical effectiveness studies and describes criteria that the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) thinks are the most appropriate for the evaluation of the effectiveness of anticoccidial drugs intended for use in poultry and other food-producing animals. The guidance suggests times during the evaluation of effectiveness when sponsors may wish to consult with CVM.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Emily R. Smith,Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-135),Food and Drug Administration,7500 Standish Pl.,Rockville, MD 20855,240-276-8344,
In the
This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on the topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in this guidance have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0032 and 0910-0117.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Q11 Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances.” The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The guidance describes approaches to developing and understanding the manufacturing process of a drug substance and provides guidance on what information should be provided in certain sections of the Common Technical Document (CTD). The guidance is intended to harmonize the scientific and technical principles relating to the description and justification of the development and manufacturing process of drug substances (both chemical entities and biotechnological/biological entities) to enable a consistent approach for providing and evaluating this information across the three regions. The discussion of principles in the guidance is intended to apply only to the manufacture of drug substance, not the manufacture of finished drug products.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Regarding the guidance:
Regarding the ICH:
In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory Agencies.
ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and other stakeholders. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).
The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the European Free Trade Area.
In the
FDA received numerous comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. After consideration of the comments and revisions to the guidance, a final draft of the guidance was submitted to the ICH Steering Committee and endorsed by the three participating regulatory Agencies in April 2012. The final document provides guidance on approaches to developing and understanding the manufacturing process of the drug substance and provides guidance on what information should be provided in certain sections of the CTD. A summary of changes includes the following: (1) Revisions to the introduction and process development sections to more strongly emphasize that purification processes play a significant role in drug substance manufacture, (2) revisions to the discussion of design space for chemical entities and biotechnological/biological drug substances, and (3) revisions to the discussion of control strategy. In addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
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.
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 Cindy Hong 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.
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.
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
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 Cindy Hong 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; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the intent to prioritize and develop therapeutic area data standards to facilitate the conduct of clinical research and the regulatory review of medical products. Therapeutic area disease and domain specific data standards should enable and enhance the ability to integrate, analyze, report, and share regulatory information. FDA has developed a roadmap that provides its current thinking on therapeutic area priorities and has posted it on the FDA Web site. FDA is actively participating with regulated industry, the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC), the Critical Path Institute, Health Level 7's (HL7) Clinical Interoperability Council, and other stakeholders to support the development of these therapeutic area standards. The therapeutic area standards will be developed collaboratively based on open, consensus-based data standards development methodology.
To ensure that the Agency considers your comments, submit either electronic or written comments by January 22, 2013.
Submit written requests for a copy of the roadmap to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests.
Submit electronic comments on FDA's objective to develop prioritized therapeutic area data standards or on the roadmap to
Traditionally, clinical study data submitted to FDA is in a format that is unique to each individual sponsor; furthermore the data quality varies. This has created inefficiencies in the review process and impeded efforts to analyze the data across applications when such analyses could be beneficial to detect trends in safety or efficacy or for other reasons. Sponsor adoption of available clinical trial data standards (CDISC/SDTM) for the submission of product applications have helped to improve the quality and standardization of submitted data. However, such a voluntary approach has proved insufficient to support both the current business requirements as well as efforts to modernize the review environment.
In 2011, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) identified a set of disease and therapeutic areas that could benefit from further standardization. These content area standards are primarily intended to support the efficient evaluation of medical products as noted previously in this document. Several factors were considered in the identification of these areas: (1) Areas of particular need, (2) areas with existing data standardization projects underway, and (3) areas with greater drug development pipeline activity. The initial prioritization was based on the number of active investigational new drug applications (or INDs) and input from review divisions, as well as from industry. The three tiers of priority were assembled into a roadmap and posted on the FDA Web site at
On July 9, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, which includes the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V). Under section XII of the PDUFA V performance goals, FDA agreed to create a plan for distinct therapeutic area data standards and to prioritize and develop the data standards in collaboration with CDISC and other open standards organizations. FDA is seeking public comment on the roadmap and will consider the comments as the Agency develops its proposed project plan which is due to be issued for review and comment by June 30, 2013. In addition, FDA will publish notices soliciting input on, and engagement in, standards development activities, and will periodically issue guidances specifying the completed data standards, formats, and terminologies that sponsors should use to submit data in applications.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding the roadmap, as well as recommendations on how the therapeutic area data standards development effort could be accomplished more rapidly, to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the roadmap at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.),notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and thediscussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentablematerial, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended(5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review SpecialEmphasis Panel, November 8, 2012, 1:00 p.m. to November 8, 2012, 4:00 p.m., NationalInstitutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge
The meeting will be held on November 20, 2012 instead of November 8, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. and will end at 11:30 a.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD, December 7, 2012, 8 a.m. to December 7, 2012, 4 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Room 2A48, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting is being changed from partially closed to closed, in order to allow full discussion of laboratory evaluations and other personnel-related matters.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies Federal agencies of the Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the
A notice listing all currently certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) is published in the
If any Laboratory/IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This notice is also available on the Internet at
Mrs. Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, Room 2-1042, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice), 240-276-2610 (fax).
The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs”, as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for Federal agencies.
To become certified, an applicant Laboratory/IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a Laboratory/IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A Laboratory/IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA) which attests that it has met minimum standards.
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:
None.
*The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Maryland (FEMA-3349-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 Maryland 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
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, Michael J. Lapinski, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Maryland have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for all counties and the Independent City of Baltimore in the State of Maryland.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency 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.
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 District of Columbia resulting from Hurricane Sandy beginning on October 28, 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, Steven S. Ward, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the District of Columbia have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program for the District of Columbia.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 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.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
This action terminates the appointment of Kevin L. Hannes as Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration 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 the incident period for this emergency is closed effective October 31, 2012.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-3358-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 notice of an emergency declaration for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of October 29, 2012.
The counties of Barbour, Boone, Braxton, Clay, Fayette, Grant, Greenbrier, Kanawha, Lewis, Nicholas, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Preston, Raleigh, Randolph, Summers, Taylor, Tucker, Upshur, Webster, and Wyoming for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration 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.
The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of New Hampshire is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of October 30, 2012.
The counties of Belknap, Carroll, Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, Stafford, and Sullivan for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
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), datedOctober 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.
Atlantic, Bergen, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset, and Union Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance).
Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Mercer, Morris, Passaic, Salem, Sussex, and Warren Counties for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4084-DR), dated October 18, 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 Florida is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 18, 2012.
Glades County for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New York (FEMA-4085-DR), datedOctober 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 York 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.
Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster 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.
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 New Jersey resulting from Hurricane Sandy beginning on October 26, 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 and 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.
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, Michael J. Hall, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of New Jersey have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Atlantic, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, and Union Counties for Individual Assistance.
Atlantic, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, and Union Counties for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
All counties within the State of New Jersey are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-4085-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 New York 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 and 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.
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, Michael F. Byrne, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of New York have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Richmond, Suffolk, and Queens Counties for Individual Assistance.
Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Richmond, Suffolk, and Queens Counties for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
All counties within the State of New York are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Rhode Island (FEMA-4089-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 Rhode Island resulting from Hurricane Sandy during the period of October 26-31, 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. Direct Federal assistance is authorized. 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, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Rhode Island have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Bristol, Newport, and Washington Counties for Public Assistance. Direct federal assistance is authorized.
All counties within the State of Rhode Island are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee Management; Notice of Open Teleconference Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board) will meet via teleconference on Wednesday, December 5, 2012. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, December 5, 2012, from 1:30 to 4:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please note that the meeting may close early if the Board has completed its business.
Members of the public may participate by teleconference and may contact Cindy Wivell as listed below in the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed below in the
•
•
There will be a 10-minute comment period after each agenda item. Please note that the public comment period may end for each agenda item, following the last call for comments. Contact Cindy Wivell to register as a speaker.
Cindy Wivell, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727, telephone (301) 447-1157, fax (301) 447-1834, and email
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States Fire Administrator, of the operation of the Academy and any improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. The Board makes interim advisories to the Administrator of FEMA, through the United States Fire Administrator, whenever there is an indicated urgency to do so in fulfilling its duties. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine whether these programs further the basic missions which are approved by the Administrator of FEMA, examines the physical plant of the Academy to determine the adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the funding levels for Academy programs. The Board submits an annual report through the United States Fire Administrator to the Administrator of FEMA, in writing. The report provides detailed comments and recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.
The Board will select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for fiscal year (FY) 2013, and will review and approve the minutes of the July 26, 2012 meeting. The Board will discuss deferred maintenance and capital improvements on the National Emergency Training Center (NETC) campus, to include FY 2013 Budget Planning. The Board will review Academy program activities including mediated instructor-led Online Course Pilot update, new National Fire Academy (NFA) Online courses, Executive Fire Officer Program Prerequisites/Accreditation update, curriculum assessment status report and American Council on Education report, anticipated FY 2013 curriculum developments, and changes in the State training system/semi-annual course call.
The Board will review the status of the Fire and Emergency Services Higher Education (FESHE) Institutional Recognition and Certificate Program and the progress of Training Resources And Data Exchange (TRADE)/FESHE Adobe Connect electronic meetings, the future of the Degrees at a Distance Program (DDP) and how changes in the DDP Program will further the NFA goal of standardizing fire science and emergency services undergraduate degree programs. In addition, the Board will be briefed on the FESHE/Professional Development Subcommittee activities.
The public will have an opportunity to comment on these issues prior to deliberation and final action by the Board. After deliberation, the Board will recommend actions to the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy and the Administrator of FEMA.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Application-Permit-Special License Unlading-Lading-Overtime Services (CBP Form 3171). This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Written comments should be received on or before January 22, 2013, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Holders or Containers which Enter the United States Duty Free. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Written comments should be received on or before January 22, 2013, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
Although an article may be brought back into the United States without being subject to duty, a consumption entry must nevertheless be made along with the reason for the article not being subject to duty set forth on the entry. However, an importer who brings in merchandise packed in U.S. manufactured containers or holders or previously duty-paid containers or holders, and does so several times a year involving a great many containers or holders, may mark the container or holder with the HTSUS number in lieu of filing of entry papers each time. CBP believes such frequent filing of entry papers for these containers or holders would be overly burdensome to the importer or shipper.
19 CFR 10.41 provides that substantial holders or containers are to have prescribed markings in clear and conspicuous letters of such a size that they will be easily discernable. Section 10.41b of the CBP regulations eliminates the need for an importer to file entry documents by instead requiring the marking of the containers or holders to indicate under which item number of the HTSUS the containers or holders are entitled duty free entry.
In order to comply with 19 CFR 10.41b, the owner of the holder or container is required to place the markings on a metal tag or plate containing the following information: 9801.00.10, HTSUS; the name of the owner; and the serial number assigned by the owner. In the case of serially numbered holders or containers of foreign manufacture for which free clearance under the second provision of item 9803.00.50 HTSUS is claimed, the owner must place the following markings containing the following information: 9803.00.50 HTSUS; the port code numbers of the port of entry; the entry number; the last two digits of the fiscal year of entry covering the importation of the holders and containers on which duty was paid; the name of the owner; and the serial number assigned by the owner.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, SGS North America, Inc., 4701 East Napoleon (Hwy 90), Sulphur, LA 70663, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
The approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger became effective on May 22, 2012. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2015.
Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of Final Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for selected Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) participating in the Small Area FMR Demonstration.
Section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA) requires the Secretary to publish FMRs periodically, but not less than annually, adjusted to be effective on October 1 of each year. This notice publishes the FMRs for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program for those PHAs selected to participate in the Small Area FMR Demonstration Program. Only those PHAs that have agreed to participate in the Demonstration are authorized to use these Small Area FMRs within their metropolitan operating areas.
For general information regarding FMRs, please call the HUD USER information line at 800-245-2691 or access the information on the HUD USER Web site
Questions related to use of Small Area FMRs or voucher payment standards should be directed to the respective local HUD program staff. Technical questions concerning the methodology used to develop Small Area FMRs may be addressed to Geoffrey B. Newton or Peter B. Kahn, Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research, telephone 202-708-0590. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. (Other than the HUD USER information line and TDD numbers, telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
Section 8 of the USHA (42 U.S.C. 1437f) authorizes housing assistance to aid lower-income families in renting safe and decent housing. Housing assistance payments are limited by FMRs established by HUD for different geographic areas. In the HCV program, the FMR is the basis for determining the “payment standard amount” used to calculate the maximum monthly subsidy for an assisted family (see 24 CFR 982.503). In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, and safe rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. In addition, all rents subsidized under the HCV program must meet reasonable rent standards. Small Area FMRs (SAFMRs) are subject to all of the same rules and regulations that govern the use of all other FMRs.
Section 8(c) of the USHA requires the Secretary of HUD to publish FMRs periodically, but not less frequently than annually. Section 8(c) states, in part, as follows:
Proposed fair market rentals for an area shall be published in the
Small Area FMRs represent a fundamentally different way of operating the voucher program in metropolitan areas; therefore, HUD is testing SAFMRs through a demonstration program to better understand the programmatic impacts of changing the way voucher payment standards are set. The purpose of the demonstration program is two-fold: (1) HUD needs to evaluate the demonstration project in terms of effectiveness in meeting the primary goal of improving tenants' housing choices in areas of opportunity while also assessing the impact on tenants in areas with SAFMRs below the metropolitan-wide FMR, and (2) HUD wants to understand and evaluate the administrative and budget impacts of converting and operating the tenant-based voucher program using SAFMRs.
SAFMRs are calculated using a rent ratio determined by dividing the median gross rent across all bedrooms for the small area (a ZIP code) by the similar median gross rent for the metropolitan area covering the ZIP code. This rent ratio is multiplied by the current two- bedroom rent for the entire metropolitan area containing the small area to generate the current year two-bedroom SAFMR. In small areas where the median gross rent is not statistically reliable, HUD substitutes the median gross rent for the county containing the ZIP code in the numerator of the rent ratio calculation. The methodology used to determine the two-bedroom rent for the entire metropolitan area is identical to the methods used to calculate FY 2013 FMRs.
For FY 2013 SAFMRs, HUD has implemented two changes to the rent ratio calculation methodology. First, HUD has updated the 2005-2009 5-year ACS based ZIP code median gross rent data with 2006-2010 5-year ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) median gross rent data. The use of the more current ACS data is consistent with the update process in the FMR methodology. However, the change from ZIP code to ZCTA was a change that the Bureau of the Census made for its aggregation process. The Census Bureau required the change to ZCTA data from ZIP code data because ZCTAs are a standard Census geography. Furthermore, The Census Bureau will not continue to support both ZIP code and ZCTA based tabulations due to concerns that ACS respondents' confidentiality could be compromised. Second, HUD expanded the criteria for determining the statistical reliability of the small area rent data in order to ensure that more SAFMRs are based on the data collected from the small area as opposed to using data from the parent county as a proxy. This change is consistent with the changes in the FMR methodology that eliminated the use of the statistical Z-test.
HUD set out to create fair treatment and control groups of PHAs to objectively evaluate the impacts of SAFMRs. Eligible PHAs, as described below, were stratified into eight groups for local PHAs, with one additional group for state PHAs that met the criteria. HUD randomly selected which PHAs within each group would be offered the opportunity to participate and a monetary incentive to do so. No PHA was compelled to participate, and no PHA could participate unless randomly selected to receive the offer.
HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) compiled statistics on PHAs, and in consultation with HUD's Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Office of Housing Voucher Programs, produced a list of PHAs eligible for random selection to participate in the Small Area FMR Demonstration. The set of eligible PHAs is defined as follows: (1) Metropolitan PHAs that have at least 500 voucher tenants, (2) have at least 10 voucher tenants living in ZIP codes where the SAFMR exceeds the metropolitan FMR by more than 10 percent; (3) have at least 10 voucher tenants living in ZIP codes where the small area FMR is more than 10 percent below the metropolitan FMR; (4) have attained at least 95 percent voucher family reporting in the PIH Information Center (PIC); (5) are not “troubled” as determined by SEMAP; (6) have the administrative capacity as determined by PIH's Office of Field Operations; and (7) not be involved in litigation that would seriously impede their ability to administer the vouchers.
Participating PHAs (and alternates) were randomly selected from stratified sets of eligible PHAs. Selected PHAs were presented with the participation agreement, including an offer of supplemental administrative fees to cover the necessary expenses they will have to incur, and given the option to decline to participate. These fees are only to be used for administrative expenses related to the implementation of Small Area FMRs and in no way used for Housing Assistance Payments. If a PHA declined to participate, an offer was presented to the next alternate until the full slate of demonstration PHAs was established.
Following the process of presenting invitations to eligible PHAs, the following have agreed to participate in the Demonstration:
1. The Chattanooga (TN) Housing Authority.
2. The Housing Authority of the City of Laredo (TX).
3. The Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach (CA).
4. The Housing Authority of the County of Cook (IL).
5. The Town of Mamaroneck (NY) Public Housing Agency.
The ZIP Code-level Small Area FMRs for all known and anticipated metropolitan ZIP codes for these five PHAs are included in Schedule B of this Notice. Additional SAFMRs are available at in the Small Area FMR section of
This Notice involves the establishment of Fair Market Rent schedules, which do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this Notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent Schedules, which will not be codified in 24 CFR part 888, are proposed to be amended as shown in the Appendix to this notice:
United States International Trade Commission.
November 27, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until December 20, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W-1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until December 20, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total respondent burden for identified and future projects covered under this generic clearance over the 3-year clearance period is approximately 14,100 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, United States Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Ms. Frances Teel, JF000, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Frances Teel, NASA PRA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JF000, Washington, DC 20546,
This collection provides a means by which NASA contractors can voluntarily and confidentially report any safety concerns or hazards pertaining to NASA programs, projects, or operations.
The current, paper-based reporting system ensures the protection of a submitters anonymity and secure submission of the report by way of the U.S. Postal Service.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
On October 15, 2012, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the National Women's Business Council's intentions to request approval on a new information collection activity that is part of an ongoing research program.
Submit comments on or before January 1, 2013.
Send all comments regarding whether these information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collections to Emily Bruno, Director of Research and Policy, National Women's Business Council, 409 3rd St SW., Suite 210, Washington, DC 20416.
Emily Bruno, Director of Research and Policy, National Women's Business Council, 202-205-6826 (
The National Women's Business Council (NWBC) is a non-partisan federal advisory council that serves as an independent source of advice and counsel to the President, Congress, and the Small Business Administration on economic issues of importance to women business owners. Members of the Council are prominent women business owners and leaders of women's business organizations.
One of the NWBC's priorities this year is to better understand young women entrepreneurs (ages 18-34) and how they are the same or different from young men entrepreneurs and older women entrepreneurs in their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. NWBC aims to understand the existing differences shown through current data as well as to explore differing expectations and growth potential through original research.
NWBC has acquired the services of a research firm to conduct quantitative data analysis of existing and available data to sketch the current state of young women entrepreneurs and identify any differences as compared to older women entrepreneurs and young men entrepreneurs. The firm would also conduct in-depth analysis of young women entrepreneurs in comparison to their counterparts through original qualitative research. The qualitative research would consist of 12 focus groups with approximately 10 individuals in each group. Questions in the focus groups will explore expectations, approaches, barriers and supports, and growth potential of young women entrepreneurs and their counterparts. The outcome of the research will be a body of evidence and set of recommendations to support the growth of businesses owned by young women entrepreneurs.
The focus groups would commence with a short questionnaire directed at a limited number of questions with defined responses. This questionnaire would be developed based on the common themes identified through previous research. The questionnaire would be given prior to the start of the focus groups and would be limited to completion within 10-15 minutes by the participants. The cover page of the questionnaire would include a limited set of demographics about the person (e.g. age, gender, entrepreneur field, year first became entrepreneur). All questionnaires will be coded with a random participant identification number, so that no names or identifiers will be included on the questionnaire. The focus groups will be no longer than 2 hours in length in total from start to finish, and no more than 10 participants will be involved in any of the focus groups. Focus groups would likely be gender- and age-specific and would be held using remote communication tools to manage time and cost.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by January 22, 2013, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents, including the draft supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments submitted should reference Docket No. NRC-2012-0230. You may submit your comments by any of the following methods: Electronic comments: Go to:
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-6258, or by email to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by December 20, 2012. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Comments can also be emailed to
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, 301-415-6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee, publicly available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by December 20, 2012. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Comments can also be emailed to
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, 301-415-6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee, publicly available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by December 20, 2012. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Comments can also be emailed to
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, 301-415-6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by January 22, 2013, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents, including the draft supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at
The document will be available on the NRC's home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
Comments submitted should reference Docket No. NRC-2012-0217. You may submit your comments by any of the following methods: Electronic comments: Go to
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-6258, or by email to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by January 22, 2013, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents, including the draft supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
The document will be available on the NRC's home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Comments submitted should reference Docket No. NRC-2012-0245. You may submit your comments by any of the following methods: Electronic comments: Go to
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-6258, or by email to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [NRC-2012-0002].
Weeks of November 19, 26, December 3, 10, 17, 24, 2012.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 19, 2012.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 10, 2012.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 17, 2012.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 24, 2012.
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301-415-1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, 301-415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Bill Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits Branch, at 301-415-6200, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by email at
This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an email to
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Under Section 6 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), benefits that may be due on the death of a railroad employee
When the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) receives notification of the death of a railroad employee or survivor annuitant, an RRB field office utilizes Form RL-94-F, Survivor Questionnaire, to secure additional information from surviving relatives needed to determine if any further benefits are payable under the RRA. Completion is voluntary. One response is requested of each respondent.
Under Section 7(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act, the RRB administers the Medicare program for persons covered by the railroad retirement system. The collection obtains the information needed by Palmetto GBA, the Medicare carrier for railroad retirement beneficiaries, to pay claims for payments under Part B of the Medicare program. Authority for collecting the information is prescribed in 42 CFR 424.32.
The RRB currently utilizes Forms G-740S, Patient's Request for Medicare Payment, along with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Form CMS-1500, to secure the information necessary to pay Part B Medicare Claims. One response is completed for each claim. Completion is required to obtain a benefit.
Estimated annual number of respondents: See Justification (Item No. 12).
Total annual responses: 1.
Total annual reporting hours: 1.
Section 3(i) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), as amended by Public Law 98-76, provides that the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), under certain circumstances, may deem additional months of service in cases where an employee does not actually work in every month of the year, provided the employee satisfies certain eligibility requirements, including the existence of an employment relation between the employee and his or her employer. The procedures pertaining to the deeming of additional months of service are found in the RRB's regulations at 20 CFR 210, Creditable Railroad Service.
The RRB utilizes Form GL-99, Employer's Deemed Service Months Questionnaire, to obtain service and compensation information from railroad employers to determine if an employee can be credited with additional deemed months of railroad service. Completion is mandatory. One response is required for each RRB inquiry.
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Charles Mierzwa, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Walter as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation date of changes to Market-Makers' continuous quoting obligations.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On July 5, 2012, the Exchange submitted a rule change filing, which became effective on that date, to amend Rule 1.1(ccc), “Continuous Electronic Quotes,” to reduce to 90% the percentage of time for which a Market-Maker is required to provide continuous electronic quotes in an appointed option class on a given trading day. That filing also included a proposed rule change to amend Rules 8.13, 8.15A, 8.85, and 8.93 to increase to the lesser of 99% or 100% minus one call-put pair the percentage of series in each class in which Preferred Market-Makers, Lead Market-Makers, Designated Primary Market-Makers, and Electronic Designated Primary Market-Makers, respectively (collectively, “Market-Makers”), must provide continuous electronic quotes.
The Exchange submitted another rule change filing on August 3, 2012, which became effective and operative upon filing, to delay implementation of these quoting obligation changes to provide Market-Makers with additional time to make necessary system changes to comply with the new quoting obligations. The filing indicated that the Exchange would announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than November 1, 2012, which implementation date would be no later than December 31, 2012.
The purpose of this rule change filing is to again delay implementation of these quoting obligation changes to provide Market-Makers with additional time to make further necessary system changes to comply with the new quoting obligations. The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 120 days following the effective date. The implementation date will be no later than 180 days following the effective date.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that delaying the implementation date of these changes to Market-Makers' continuous quoting obligations to allow Market-Makers to further adjust their systems to be consistent with the new quoting obligations will provide efficiencies that will benefit investors and the public interest and encourage more efficient order entry practices by Market-Makers. The Exchange believes that additional time to allow Market-Maker's [sic] to adjust their systems will promote compliance by Market-Makers with the new quoting obligations. Providing Market-Makers with additional time to make necessary system adjustments that will allow them to comply with the new quoting obligations fosters cooperation between the Market-Makers and the Exchange, which monitors Market-Makers' compliance with quoting obligations. Additionally, the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to announce an implementation schedule in a fair and orderly manner.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
OCC proposes to revise the method for determining the minimum clearing fund size to include consideration of the amount necessary for OCC to draw on its secured credit facilities.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this advance notice is to implement a minimum clearing fund size equal to 110% of the amount of committed credit facilities secured by the clearing fund to ensure that the amount of the clearing fund likely will exceed the required collateral value that would be necessary for OCC to be able to draw in full on such credit facilities. OCC's clearing fund is primarily intended to provide a high degree of assurance that market integrity will be maintained in the event that one or more clearing members or other specified entities to which OCC has credit exposure fails to meet its obligations.
On September 23, 2011, the Commission approved a proposed rule change by OCC to establish the size of OCC's clearing fund as the amount that is required, within a confidence level selected by OCC, to sustain the maximum anticipated loss under a defined set of scenarios as determined by OCC, subject to a minimum clearing fund size of $1 billion.
Under the formula that is implemented for determining the size of the clearing fund as a result of the May 2012 change, OCC's Rules provide that the amount of the fund is equal to the larger of the amount of the charge to the fund that would result from (i) a default by the single “clearing member group”
This minimum dollar size for OCC's clearing fund is the subject of this advance notice. OCC maintains committed credit facilities that are secured by the clearing fund in order to provide a source of liquidity in the event of a default by a clearing member or one of OCC's settlement banks. The change arises out of a regular review that OCC conducts in order to determine the appropriate aggregate amount of such committed credit facilities. In addition to its liquidity exposure to the potential failure of a clearing member, OCC also evaluates its liquidity exposure to settlement banks in respect of their ability to wire net settlement proceeds in time for OCC to meet its settlement obligations at one or more of OCC's other settlement banks as well as OCC's credit exposure to banks that issue letters of credit on behalf of clearing members as a form of margin.
OCC's committed credit facilities are secured by assets in the clearing fund and certain margin deposits of suspended clearing members. In light of the uncertainty regarding the amount of margin assets of a suspended clearing member that might be eligible at any given point to support borrowing under the secured credit facilities, OCC has considered the availability of funds based on a consideration of the amount of the clearing fund deposits available as collateral. To draw on the full amount of its credit facilities secured by the clearing fund, the size of the clearing fund would need to be approximately $2.2 billion. The $2.2 billion figure reflects a 10% increase above the total size of such credit facilities, which is meant to account for the percentage discount applied to collateral pledged by OCC in determining the amount available for borrowing.
Based on monthly recalculation information, the size of OCC's clearing fund during the period from July 2011 to July 2012 was less than $2.2 billion on eight occasions. Therefore, to address the risk that the assets in the clearing fund might at any time be insufficient to enable OCC to meet potential liquidity needs by fully accessing its committed credit facilities that are secured by the clearing fund, the proposed rule change described by the advance notice would amend the requirement that the minimum size of the clearing fund cannot be less than $1 billion by providing instead that the minimum clearing fund size would be equal to the greater of either $1 billion or 110% of the amount of such committed credit facilities. OCC proposes to denote the credit facility component of the minimum clearing fund requirement as a percentage of the total amount of the credit facilities that
OCC does not believe that the proposed changes contained in the advance notice will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule changes contained in the advance notice.
The proposed changes contained in the advance notice may be implemented pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(G) of Clearing Supervision Act
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed changes raise novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. Proposed changes may be implemented in fewer than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed changes and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed changes on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
The proposals contained in this advance notice shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposals are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number AN-OCC-2012-04 and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2012.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to introduce fees for the use of ports. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to introduce monthly fees for the use of ports that provide connectivity to the Exchange's trading systems (i.e., ports for entry of orders and/or quotes (“order/quote entry ports”)) as well as for ports that allow for the receipt of “drop copies” of order or transaction information (“drop copy ports” and, together with order/quote entry ports, “ports”).
The Exchange currently makes order/quote entry ports available for connectivity to its trading systems, but does not currently charge for order/quote entry ports related to option activity on NYSE Arca Options. The Exchange proposes to implement fees for order/quote entry ports on a per port basis. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to charge $200 per port per month for order/quote entry ports;
The Exchange proposes that unutilized order/quote entry ports that connect to the Exchange via its backup datacenter and are not utilized be considered established for backup purposes and not charged port fees. However, if activity were conducted through one of these order/quote entry ports, whether for backup or any other purposes, port fees would apply for the relevant month or months. In this regard, the Exchange notes that it monitors usage of these particular ports. Accordingly, if an order/quote were sent to the Exchange via one of these ports, then the port would be charged the applicable monthly port fee.
The Exchange proposes to implement a fee of $500 for drop copy ports.
The Exchange also proposes that drop copy ports that connect to the Exchange via its backup datacenter not be charged if the drop copy port is configured such that it is duplicative of another drop copy port of the same user, regardless of whether the drop copy port is utilized or not. The Exchange is proposing to treat drop copy ports in this manner because a firm would not derive any value or utility from a drop copy port in the datacenter that is duplicative of another drop copy port that it already has outside of the datacenter, in that, because drop copy ports are used to send duplicative information, a second drop copy port carrying the same information would not be a useful resource, except for a backup purpose.
Overall, the Exchange believes that the changes proposed herein will result in a method of billing for ports that is closely aligned with the needs of firms with ports and permit the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges with respect to fees charged for ports.
The Exchange proposes to implement these changes on November 1, 2012. In this regard, the Exchange notes that billing for ports would be based on the number of ports on the third business day prior to the end of the month. In addition, the level of activity with respect to a particular port would not affect the assessment of monthly fees, such that, except for ports that are not charged and ports considered established for backup purposes, even if a particular port is not used, a port fee would still apply.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Overall, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes, including the rates proposed, are reasonable because the fees charged for order/quote entry ports and drop copy ports are expected to permit the exchange to offset, in part, its connectivity costs associated with making such ports available, including costs based on gateway software and hardware enhancements and resources dedicated to gateway development, quality assurance, and support. In this regard, the Exchange believes that its fees are competitive with those charged by other venues, and that in some cases its port fees are less expensive than many of its primary competitors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed methodology for billing for order/quote entry ports is reasonable because it will allow a firm to request, and pay for, the specific number of ports that it requires. This aspect of the proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in charges for order/entry ports being based on the number of ports utilized. This aspect of the proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply on an equal basis for all ports on the Exchange, except for order/quote entry ports in the backup datacenter that are not utilized.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to charge $200 per port per month for order/quote entry ports because it is comparable to the rates of other exchanges.
The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide the first five option order/quote entry ports for free and to decrease the rate to $100 for ports 101 and greater. Specifically, providing the first five option ports without charge would allow firms to adapt to the introduction of the fees for ports. Additionally, decreasing the fee to $100 per port for more than 100 ports would permit those firms that have multiple order/quote entry ports to maintain connections to the Exchange, despite the port fees that would apply as a result of this proposed change. Further, the Exchange notes that option Market Makers would, generally, be the type of market participant that would have more than 100 ports. This is due in large part to the significant number of series that exist for any particular option class
The Exchange believes that the proposed new fee for drop copy ports is reasonable because it will result in a fee being charged for the use of technology and infrastructure provided by the Exchange. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the rate is reasonable because it is comparable to the rate charged by other exchanges for drop copy ports.
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable that only one fee per drop copy port would apply, even if the port receives drop copies from multiple order/quote entry ports and/or from both NYSE Arca Options and NYSE Arca Equities, because the purpose of drop copies is such that a trading unit's or a firm's entire order and execution activity is captured, including with respect to both equities and options. This is also reflected in the rate of $500 that is proposed for drop copy ports, which is higher than the rate proposed for order/quote entry ports. The Exchange believes that the proposed new fee for drop copy ports is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply on an equal basis to all users of drop copy ports and to all drop copy ports on the Exchange, except for ports in the backup datacenter.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to not charge for order/quote entry ports in its backup datacenter that are not utilized. However, the exchange does not restrict firms from using order/quote entry ports from the backup datacenter and, as described above, if one of these ports is utilized for order/quote entry, then port fees would apply. The Exchange believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would permit firms to have ports established for backup purposes, should they ever be needed, without the burden of paying for such ports when they are not utilized. The Exchange believes this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because firms will not be disincentivized from requesting backup ports because of a fee that may otherwise apply. This would contribute to the efficiency of a backup process if primary order/quote entry ports ever became unavailable.
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to not charge for drop copy ports in its backup datacenter if configured such that it is duplicative of another drop copy port of the same user, regardless of whether the drop copy port is utilized or not. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to treat drop copy ports in this manner because a firm would not derive any value/use from a drop copy port in the datacenter that is duplicative of another drop copy port that it already has outside of the datacenter (i.e., because drop copy ports are used to send duplicative information anyways, a second drop copy port carrying the same information would not be a useful resource), except for a backup purpose. The Exchange believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would permit firms to have ports established for drop copy purposes in the backup datacenter, should they ever be needed, without the burden of paying for such ports. Because the drop copy port would not be providing any information that the firm did not already have, since the port would be configured such that it is duplicative of another drop copy port of the same user, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to treat order/quote entry ports and drop copy ports differently in this manner. The Exchange believes this is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because firms will not be disincentivized from requesting backup drop copy ports because of a fee that may otherwise apply. This would contribute to the efficiency of a backup
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Assessments (the “Fee Schedule”), effective November 2, 2012, relating to its order cancellation fee for Participants entering and subsequently cancelling order under certain circumstances. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Beginning in January 2010, the Exchange published Fee Schedule imposed a charge for order cancellations in issues priced $1.00 per share or more
However, soon after the imposition of the original order cancellation fee, the Exchange had observed that the number of unexecuted and displayed orders had actually increased for certain Participants. It was apparent to the Exchange that in order to avoid application of the cancellation fee, certain Participants were submitting Quotable orders to the CHX's Matching System, but for an extremely short duration, rendering such activity negligible. In addition to avoiding order cancellation fees, this quotation activity actually exacerbated the operational costs which the Exchange sought to avoid by creating the order cancellation fee in the first place. The Exchange had observed that those firms entering the limited durational orders described above conducted much of their business on our trading facilities in Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”), Exchange Traded Notes (“ETNs”) or Exchange Traded Vehicles (“ETVs”), collectively referred to as Exchange Traded Products (“ETPs”).
Nevertheless, after the modified order cancellation fee went into effect, the Exchange observed that certain Participants had found a number of methods for avoiding the application of the modified order cancellation fee. For example, certain Participants submitted Quotable orders to the CHX's Matching System in
The current order cancellation fee utilizes a formula, calculated on a daily basis, which divides the Participant's total cancelled volume in a given issue (“cvissue”) by the Participant's total executed volume in that issue (“exvissue”). In those instances where a Participant's daily activity in a given issue exceeds a cancellation ratio of 30, the Exchange imposes an order cancellation fee of $.30 on each cancellation in that issue for that day and bills such fees on a monthly basis. By only crediting Participants with Quotable orders of the same issue as Wide orders, the Exchange sought to eliminate the practice of quoting in thinly-traded stocks to reduce cancellation fee liability. Furthermore, by imposing the cancellation fee on a daily basis, the Exchange sought to eliminate end-of-the-month fee avoidance trading activity.
After the current order cancellation fee went into effect, there has been a noticeable reduction in the aforementioned “gaming” of the order cancellation fee formula. However, the Exchange submits that this fee mechanism can be further perfected to promote display liquidity (
The Exchange now proposes to readopt the original order cancellation fee, with amendments to provide for the
In determining whether the proposed order cancellation fee would be imposed, the Exchange proposes to utilize a formula that subtracts from the total daily number of Wide or “W” orders in a given security, the product of Near or “N” orders
In contrast to the original W order, an order may now be considered Wide if any one of the following three conditions are met.
Moreover, the proposed W order introduces two new parameters. First, the “Threshold Away Amount” is a security-type specific value that establishes a bright-line value for determining when an order price is either away or near the NBBO. Although the value of this parameter may eventually vary by security-type, the Exchange proposes to set the Threshold Away Amount at $0.03 for all six security types.
In contrast to the original “Quotable” or “Q” order, the proposed N order is defined as (1) an order in a security priced at $1.00 per share or more submitted by the Participant in the Regular Trading Session, (2) where the difference between the order price and the NBB or NBO is less than its corresponding Threshold Away Amount and (3) where the order is not voluntarily cancelled by the Participant prior to either its corresponding Minimum Duration or prior to a partial execution of the order, whichever is earlier.
Moreover, the proposed N order will be modified by a “Near order multiplier” or “N
The following examples illustrate how an order may be classified as either Wide or Near. For all Examples, assume submission of a buy order for 1,000 shares of a Tape A non-derivative security:
For Example A, assume that the price of the order is $0.04 inferior to the NBB and it is voluntarily cancelled by the Participant twelve (12) milliseconds after submission to the Matching System. Since the difference between the order price and NBB (“price difference”) is greater than the Threshold Away Amount for a Tape A non-derivative security ($0.03), this is a Wide order, notwithstanding all other factors.
For Example B, assume that the price of the order is $0.04 inferior to the NBB and it is fully executed after twelve (12) milliseconds. Since the price difference is greater than the corresponding Threshold Away Amount, this is a Wide order, notwithstanding all other factors.
For Example C, assume that the price of the order is $0.04 inferior to the NBB, there is a partial execution of 500 shares after five (5) milliseconds and the remainder of the order is voluntarily cancelled after twelve (12) milliseconds. Since the price difference is greater than the corresponding Threshold Away Amount, it is a Wide order, notwithstanding all other factors.
For Example D, assume that the price of the order is $0.01 inferior to the NBB, there is a partial execution of 500 shares after five (5) milliseconds, the remainder is voluntarily cancelled after twelve (12) milliseconds and the order is marked “Do Not Display.” Since the order is marked “Do Not Display,” it is a Wide order, notwithstanding all other factors.
For Example E, assume that the order price is equal to the NBB and the order is fully executed after twelve (12) milliseconds. Since the price difference is less than the corresponding Threshold Away Amount and the order was fully executed, this is a Near order.
For Example F, assume that the order price is equal to the NBB, there is a partial execution of 500 shares after five (5) milliseconds and the balance of the order is voluntarily cancelled after eight (8) milliseconds. Since the price difference is less than the corresponding Threshold Away Amount and the order was cancelled only after a partial execution of 500 shares, this is a Near order, notwithstanding the order having been voluntarily cancelled prior to the expiration of the corresponding Minimum Duration.
For Example G, assume that the order price is $0.01 inferior to the NBB and it is voluntarily cancelled after 20 milliseconds without any executions. Since the price difference is less than the corresponding Threshold Away Amount and the order was only cancelled after the expiration of the corresponding Minimum Duration, it is a Near order.
Moreover, the operation of the proposed order cancellation fee formula can be illustrated by the use of some more examples. For Example 1, assume that on a given day, a Participant firm submits to the Matching System 200,000 buy orders for a Tape A non-derivative security. Of this amount, 180,000 orders are priced $0.04 inferior to the NBB and are voluntarily cancelled after twelve (12) milliseconds, thus making these orders Wide. The remaining 20,000 orders are priced $0.02 inferior to the NBB and are voluntarily cancelled after twelve (12) milliseconds, thus making these orders Near. Out of 200,000 submitted orders, 1,000 orders are executed in whole or in part.
Example 1 also illustrates the power of the N
For Example 2, we assume the same facts as above, with the exception that the Participant firm submits a total of 400,000 buy orders for a Tape A non-derivative security on a given day and that 380,000 of those orders are Wide orders. Also assume that 200,000 such W and N orders are cancelled. Pursuant to the proposed formula, the difference between W (380,000) and the product of N and the corresponding N multiplier of two (40,000) is 340,000. Dividing that figure by the number of orders which were executed (E or 1,000) gives us an order cancellation ratio of 340. Since the corresponding order cancellation ratio of a Tape A non-derivative security is 150, a cancellation fee of $2,000, which is the product of 200,000 cancellations and $0.01 per order cancelled, would be assessed on this day, to this Participant, with respect to this specific security.
The purpose of this order cancellation fee is to incent Participants to submit orders which, when quoted, are at or close to the NBBO or, at the very least, compensate the Exchange for the processing and electronic storage costs associated with orders which rarely execute. Under the proposed formula, the likelihood that the cancellation fee would be imposed increases with the number of Wide orders submitted by the Participant. The formula is designed to isolate a pattern of behavior in which a Participant submits orders well outside the NBBO and frequently cancels and reenters such orders to continuously stay outside the NBBO.
The Exchange believes that the proposed order cancellation fee benefits the national market system by promoting the display of Near orders, which will result in increased displayed liquidity and reduced order cancellations. This will, in turn, relieve the Exchange's systems capacity and will result in decreased order and market data storage costs. Since Wide orders are infrequently executed, such orders are more expensive, on a relative basis, for the Exchange to receive and process.
The Exchange proposes to implement the cancellation charge effective November 2, 2012. The formula by which the cancellation fee is derived shall be calculated and made available to Participants daily, but billed after the end of the month.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received.
The proposed rule change is to take effect pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 18, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(a) sets forth the general provisions for Options Committees. Specifically, NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(a)(8) states that any OTP Holder
The Exchange also proposes to expand the eligibility for its fair representation directors.
The Exchange proposes to make parallel changes to the NYSE Arca Equities Rules. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(a) sets forth general provisions for various Equities Committees. Specifically, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(a)(8) states that any ETP Holder
In addition to amending the composition requirements of the Equities Nominating Committee, the Exchange also proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rules 3.2(b)(2)(C)(i) to expand the eligibility for fair representation directors. Currently, the Equities Nominating Committee may nominate ETP Holders or Allied Persons of ETP Holders to serve on the NYSE Arca Board. The Exchange proposes to expand the eligibility for fair representation directors by amending this rule to allow the Equities Nominating Committee to publish the name of an Associated Person of an ETP Firm as well.
The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule changes and finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The proposed rule change also furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,
The Commission also believes that the proposed rule change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the “Fee Schedule”) to change the monthly fees for the use of ports. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to change the monthly fees for the use of ports that provide connectivity to the Exchange's trading systems (i.e., ports for entry of orders and/or quotes (“order/quote entry ports”)) and to implement a fee for ports that allow for the receipt of “drop copies” of order or transaction information (“drop copy ports” and, together with order/quote entry ports, “ports”).
The Exchange currently makes order/quote entry ports available for connectivity to its trading systems and charges $300 per port pair per month for up to five pairs of ports, then $1,500 per month for each additional five pairs of ports.
The Exchange proposes to change the current methodology for order/quote entry port billing, such that order/quote entry ports would be charged on a per port basis, without billing in groups of five and without requiring that ports be in pairs.
The Exchange proposes that users of RMG would not be charged for order/quote entry ports if such ports are designated as being used for RMG purposes. RMG enables Sponsoring ETP Holders to verify whether a Sponsored Participant's orders comply with order criteria established by the Sponsoring ETP Holder for the Sponsored Participant, including, among other things, criteria related to order size (per order or daily quantity limits), credit limits (per order or daily value), specific symbols or end users.
The Exchange proposes to implement a fee for drop copy ports,
In addition, the Exchange proposes that users of RMG would not be charged for drop copy ports if such ports are designated as being used for RMG purposes. The Exchange proposes that users of RMG not be required to pay port fees for drop copy ports designated as being used for RMG because, in the Exchange's opinion, ports are an integral part of RMG and such users are already charged a fee for RMG, including additional connections related thereto, which the Exchange believes is sufficient to cover its costs related to making the ports available for RMG purposes. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to specify that port fees are not applicable to drop copy ports designated as being used for RMG.
Finally, the Exchange proposes that unutilized order/quote entry ports that connect to the Exchange via its backup datacenter and are not utilized be considered established for backup purposes and not charged port fees.
The Exchange also proposes that drop copy ports that connect to the Exchange via its backup datacenter not be charged if the drop copy port is configured such that it is duplicative of another drop copy port of the same user, regardless of whether the drop copy port is utilized or not. The Exchange is proposing to treat drop copy ports in this manner because a firm would not derive any value or utility from a drop copy port in the datacenter that is duplicative of another drop copy port that it already has outside of the datacenter, in that, because drop copy ports are used to send duplicative information, a second drop copy port carrying the same information would not be a useful resource, except for a backup purpose.
Overall, the Exchange believes that the changes proposed herein will result in the method of billing for ports more closely aligning with the needs of firms with ports. The proposed changes will also permit the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges with respect to fees charged for ports.