Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Antitrust Division
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Interim final rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing an interim regulation to amend regulations regarding the effect of any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation, or any court-approved property settlement agreement incident to any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation (hereinafter “court order”) where the court order expressly provides that an individual receive Federal Employee's Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) benefits. The interim regulations will allow court orders submitted to the appropriate Federal agency before July 22, 1998 to be effective for providing FEGLI benefits if the court order was received in the appropriate office before the insured Federal employee's or annuitant's death. This revision does not affect the current statutory limitation that court orders apply only when FEGLI benefits are based on insured individuals who died after July 22, 1998.
This rule is effective December 4, 2012.
Marguerite Martel, Senior Policy Analyst, at (202) 606-0004 or email:
Public Law 105-205, 112 Stat. 683, enacted July 22, 1998, amending section 8705 of title 5, United States Code, required benefits to be paid in accordance with the terms of a court order instead of the otherwise existing statutory order of precedence for payment of benefits under FEGLI. On October 8, 1999, OPM published a final regulation interpreting the law to mean that only those court orders received in the appropriate office after the date the law was enacted would be valid to name a FEGLI beneficiary. The regulation amended § 870.01(d)(2), of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
Based on
Under Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.) a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required unless an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, the APA exempts interpretative rules from proposed rulemaking procedures. This rule expands benefit eligibility based on a court-approved settlement agreement which requires the agency to amend current regulations in an expeditious manner. Therefore, OPM has concluded that delaying implementation of this rule due to a full notice and public comment period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Further, OPM has determined that this rule is an interpretive rule implementing a court decision and adds little substantive interpretation of the law. For the foregoing reasons, OPM asserts that good cause exists to implement this rule as an interim rule under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and accordingly, adopts this rule on that basis.
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563, which directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rule is not considered a major rule because OPM estimates there are relatively few court orders received by the appropriate office before July 22, 1998.
This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will apply only to Federal employees, annuitants and their former spouses.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Hostages, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Life insurance, Retirement.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 870 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8716; Subpart J also issued under section 599C of Pub. L. 101-513, 104 Stat. 2064, as amended; Sec. 870.302(a)(3)(ii) also issued under section 153 of Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; Sec.
(d) * * *
(2) To qualify a person for such payment, a certified copy of the court order must be received in the appropriate office before the death of the insured.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that decreased the assessment rate established for the Avocado Administrative Committee (Committee) for the 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.37 to $0.25 per 55-pound bushel container of Florida avocados handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order for avocados grown in South Florida. The interim rule decreased the assessment rate to reflect a reduction in expenditures for research and to help reduce industry costs.
Effective December 5, 2012.
Doris Jamieson or Christian D. Nissen, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 325-8793, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 915, as amended (7 CFR part 915), regulating the handling of avocados grown in South Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
Under the order, Florida avocado handlers are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the order. Assessment rates issued under the order are intended to be applicable to all assessable Florida avocados for the entire fiscal period, and continue indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated. The Committee's fiscal period begins on April 1, and ends on March 31.
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 30 handlers of Florida avocados subject to regulation under the order and around 300 producers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to Committee data and information from the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), the average price for Florida avocados during the 2011-12 season was around $16.50 per 55-pound bushel container and total shipments were near 1,200,000 55-bushels. Using the average price and shipment information provided by the Committee, the majority of avocado handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on avocado production, producer prices, and the total number of Florida avocado producers, the average annual producer revenue is less than $750,000. Consequently, the majority of avocado handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.37 to $0.25 per 55-pound bushel container of avocados. The Committee unanimously recommended 2012-13 expenditures of $324,575 and an assessment rate of $0.25 per 55-pound bushel container of avocados. The assessment rate of $0.25 is $0.12 lower than the rate previously in effect. Applying the $0.25 per 55-pound bushel container assessment rate to the Committee's 1,000,000 55-pound bushel container crop estimate should provide $250,000 in assessment income. Thus, income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve will be adequate to cover the budgeted expenses. The decrease in the assessment rate reflects a reduction in Committee expenditures for research and will help reduce industry costs.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers.
In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Florida avocado industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the December 14, 2011, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic OMB Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are anticipated. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida avocado handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before August 31, 2012. No comments were received. Therefore, for reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Avocados, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 915, which was published at 77 FR 39150 on July 2, 2012, is adopted as a final rule, without change.
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy (DOE).
Final rule.
DOE is amending its regulations at 10 CFR part 710, which sets forth the policies and procedures for resolving questions concerning eligibility for DOE access authorization, to revise a provision concerning designation of an acting official and to update the official's title. Specifically, the duties assigned to the Principal Deputy for Mission Support Operations (formerly, the Deputy Chief for Operations), Office of Health, Safety and Security, may now be exercised by a person or persons designated in writing as acting for, or in the temporary capacity of, that official. Currently, the part 710 regulations state that this official's duties may be exercised by another individual only in the official's absence. Today's final rule also revises one title: “Principal Deputy for Mission Support Operations” replaces “Deputy Chief for Operations”.
Christina Pak, Office of the General Counsel, GC-52, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585;
10 CFR part 710 sets forth the policies and procedures for resolving questions concerning eligibility for DOE access authorization. Various DOE officials are assigned specific duties in this process. Currently, section 710.36 provides that each of the named officials, with the exception of the Secretary of Energy and the Deputy Chief for Operations, Office of Health, Safety and Security, may designate his or her duties to other DOE officials without restriction.
Since the part 710 rule was last amended in 2001, experience has demonstrated that conditioning the Deputy Chief for Operations' ability to delegate his part 710 functions solely on occasions when he is absent from the office is unduly restrictive, unnecessary, and administratively inefficient. In order to enhance the Department's ability to effectively manage the Administrative Review process prescribed by part 710, the Deputy Chief of Operations should be accorded greater flexibility in delegating his assigned responsibilities under the rule. In those cases where duties of the Deputy Chief of Operations are delegated pursuant to this amendment, they will continue to be exercised by a DOE employee in a security-related Senior Executive Service position within the Office of Health, Safety and Security, as approved by the Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer. In addition, DOE would update part 710 to reflect organizational changes within the Office of Health, Safety and Security by replacing “Deputy Chief for Operations” wherever it appears in the rule with “Principal Deputy Chief for Mission Support Operations”.
The regulatory amendments in this final rule do not alter substantive rights or obligations under current law.
Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be “a significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. DOE believes that today's rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits.
The regulatory amendments in this notice of final rulemaking reflect a transfer of function that relates solely to internal agency organization, management or personnel. As such, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), this rule is not subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, including the requirements to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment and a 30-day delay in effective date.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
DOE has concluded that promulgation of this rule falls into a class of actions that would not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined today's rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of a Federal regulatory action on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. DOE has determined that today's regulatory action does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guideline issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's regulatory action is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of today's final rule. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).
The Office of the Secretary of Energy has approved issuance of this rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Government contracts, Government employees, Nuclear materials.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 710 of chapter III, title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 2165, 2201, 5815, 7101,
Except for the Secretary, the responsibilities and authorities conferred in this subpart may be exercised by persons who have been designated in writing as acting for, or in the temporary capacity of, the following DOE positions: The Local Director of Security; the Manager; the Director, Office of Personnel Security, DOE Headquarters; or the General Counsel. The responsibilities and authorities of the Principal Deputy Chief for Mission Support Operations, Office of Health, Safety and Security, may be exercised by persons in security-related Senior Executive Service positions within the Office of Health, Safety and Security who have been designated in writing as acting for, or in the temporary capacity of, the Principal Deputy Chief for Mission Support Operations, with the approval of the Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is revising a final rule published on June 7, 2000 (65 FR 36244). In that final rule, the FAA amended its regulations for the certification of changes to type-certificated products. That amendment was to enhance safety by applying the latest airworthiness standards, to the extent practical, for the certification of significant design changes of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers. The existing rule requires the applicant show that the “changed product” complies with applicable standards. This action revises that requirement so that an applicant is required to show compliance only for the change and areas affected by the change. The intended effect of this action is to make the regulation consistent with the FAA's
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2001-8994 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Victor Powell, Certification Procedures Office (AIR-110), Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 385-6326; email
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Douglas Anderson, Northwest Mountain Region—Deputy Regional Counsel (ANM-7), Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Regional Office, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 227-2166; facsimile (425) 227-1007; email
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes the scope of the FAA Administrator's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, chapter 447, section 44701. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting the safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the FAA Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it will clarify existing requirements for an applicant's showing of compliance of an altered type-certificated product.
The FAA has recognized over time the wording of current § 21.101 may establish a requirement for a compliance showing that is too broad for an applicant for a major design change. The current § 21.101(a) requires an applicant to show the “changed product” meets applicable airworthiness requirements.
On June 7, 2000, the FAA published a final rule entitled, “Type Certification Procedures for Changed Products” (65 FR 36244). In that final rule, the FAA revised the procedural requirements for the certification of changes to type-certificated products. The revision required the applicant to apply the latest airworthiness standards in effect, to the extent practical, for the certification of significant design changes of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers. Before this final rule, many changes to aeronautical products were not required to show compliance with the latest airworthiness standards. This rule was needed because incremental design approval changes accumulated into significant differences from the original product. The final rule was intended to expand under what conditions the latest airworthiness amendments needed to be applied to changes to aeronautical products.
Section 21.101 requires that applicants show the “changed product” meets the applicable requirements to obtain an amended type certificate, supplemental type certificate, or amended supplemental type certificate. While the purpose of the rule was to enhance safety by requiring compliance with the latest amendments, we intended to limit an applicant's responsibility to those areas affected by the change. Areas not affected by the change, as described in § 21.101(b)(2) need not be resubstantiated.
The preambles to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (62 FR 24294, May 2, 1997) and the subsequent final rule entitled “Type Certification Procedures for Changed Products” (65 FR 36244, June 7, 2000) established parameters of an applicant's responsibility for showing compliance with the latest amendments to the change and those areas affected by the change of a type-certificated product. However, the term “product” is defined in § 21.1(b) to mean “aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller.” By requiring applicants to show the “changed product” meets applicable requirements, we inadvertently required the entire product be shown to meet at least the requirements that applied to the original type certificate. This was not our intent and was neither the FAA's practice before the adoption of that rule, nor has it been our practice since its adoption.
The term “changed product” is replaced with “change and areas affected by the change” in § 21.101 to be consistent with the rule language as established in § 21.101(b)(2) and (b)(3)
During efforts to revise § 21.101, the FAA discovered that § 21.97(a)(2), Approval of major changes in type design, contains similar language to § 21.101 in the case of a “changed product.” The FAA has therefore determined that § 21.97(a)(2) should also be changed by this amendment.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA determined that this rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, (4) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, (5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States, and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order allows that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a minimal cost determination has been made on this final rule because this requirement reflects current practices.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
The net economic impact of this rule is expected to be minimal. As this rule is clarifying in nature, the acting FAA Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. We assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that it will not constitute an obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, and, thus, is consistent with the Trade Assessments Act.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312(f) of the Order and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
See the “Regulatory Evaluation” discussion in the “Regulatory Notices and Analyses” section elsewhere in this preamble.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have Federalism implications.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the amendments in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the rulemaking, 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 only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking. Before acting on this rulemaking, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using the Internet—
1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Comments received may be viewed by going to
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
(a) * * *
(2) Show that the change and areas affected by the change comply with the applicable requirements of this subchapter, and provide the FAA the means by which such compliance has been shown; and
(a) An applicant for a change to a type certificate must show that the change and areas affected by the change comply with the airworthiness requirements applicable to the category of the product in effect on the date of the application for the change and with parts 34 and 36 of this chapter. Exceptions are detailed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, if paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section apply, an applicant may show that the change and areas affected by the change comply with an earlier amendment of a regulation required by paragraph (a) of this section, and of any other regulation the FAA finds is directly related. However, the earlier amended regulation may not precede either the corresponding regulation incorporated by reference in the type certificate, or any regulation in §§ 23.2, 25.2, 27.2, or 29.2 of this subchapter that is related to the change. The applicant may show compliance with an earlier amendment of a regulation for any of the following:
(3) Each area, system, component, equipment, or appliance that is affected by the change, for which the FAA finds that compliance with a regulation described in paragraph (a) of this section would not contribute materially to the level of safety of the product or would be impractical.
(c) An applicant for a change to an aircraft (other than a rotorcraft) of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight, or to a non-turbine rotorcraft of 3,000 pounds or less maximum weight may show that the change and areas affected by the change comply with the regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate. However, if the FAA finds that the change is significant in an area, the FAA may designate compliance with an amendment to the regulation incorporated by reference in the type certificate that applies to the change and any regulation that the FAA finds is directly related, unless the FAA also finds that compliance with that amendment or regulationwould not contribute materially to the level of safety of the product or would be impractical.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (CAS No. 25155-30-0) as an antimicrobial agent for use in wash water for fruits and vegetables without the requirement of a potable water rinse. This action is in response to a petition filed by Ecolab, Inc.
This rule is effective December 4, 2012. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing by January 3, 2013. See section VII of this document for information on the filing of objections.
You may submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing, identified by Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0853, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic objections in the following way:
•
Submit written objections in the following ways:
•
•
Molly Harry, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1075.
In a notice published in the
The use of SDBS is currently approved in washing or to assist in the peeling of fruits and vegetables under § 173.315 provided its use is followed by a potable water rinse. In addition, FDA food additive regulations permit the use of SDBS as an indirect food additive for use as a component of single and repeated use food contact substances (21 CFR 177.1010, 177.1200, 177.1630, 177.2600, and 177.2800), in sanitizing solutions (21 CFR 178.1010), and in the production of animal glue (21 CFR 178.3120).
The definition of “pesticide chemical” under section 201(q)(1)(B)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(q)(1)(B)(i)), excludes an antimicrobial added to water that comes into contact with food, in the preparing, packing, or holding of the food for commercial purposes. This exclusion applies whether the water is to contact raw agricultural commodities or processed food. Consequently, such an antimicrobial is a “food additive” under section 201(s) of the FD&C Act and subject to the requirements in section 409 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 348). The petitioned use of SDBS as an antimicrobial agent in processing water is for a food additive use in certain food service facilities. Although the petitioned use of SDBS is regulated under section 409 of the FD&C Act as a food additive, this intended use of SDBS may nevertheless be subject to regulation as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Therefore, manufacturers intending to use this food additive for this intended use should contact the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether this use requires a pesticide registration under FIFRA.
Under the general safety standard in section 409 of the FD&C Act, a food additive cannot be approved for a particular use unless a fair evaluation of the data available to FDA establishes that the additive is safe for that use. FDA's food additive regulations (21 CFR 170.3(i)) define “safe” as “a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use.”
To establish with reasonable certainty that a food additive is not harmful under its intended conditions of use, FDA considers the projected human dietary intake of the additive, the additive's toxicological data, and other relevant information (such as published literature) available to FDA. As part of FDA's safety evaluation, FDA reviewed data from published studies in animals on the safety of SDBS, including a 2-year carcinogenicity study in rats and a multigeneration reproductive study with rats. Based on the results from these studies and FDA's estimated dietary intake to SDBS from current and the proposed food uses, FDA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm and the petitioned use of SDBS is safe within the meaning of section 409 of the FD&C Act.
FDA reviewed data in the petition and other available relevant material to evaluate the safety of SDBS as an antimicrobial agent for use in wash water for fruits and vegetables without the requirement of a potable water rinse. Based on this information, FDA concludes that the proposed use of the additive is safe and the additive will achieve its intended technical effect as an antimicrobial agent under the proposed conditions of use. Therefore, the regulations in part 173 should be amended as set forth in this document.
In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its decision to approve the petition will be made available for inspection at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the information contact person (see
FDA has carefully considered the potential environmental effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have a significant impact on the human environment, and that an environmental impact statement is not required. FDA's finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding, contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (see
This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see
FDA's review of this petition was limited to section 409 of the FD&C Act. This final rule is not a statement regarding compliance with other sections of the FD&C Act. For example, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, which was signed into law on September 27, 2007, amended the FD&C Act to, among other things, add section 301(ll) (21 U.S.C. 331(ll)). Section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that contains a drug approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355), a biological product licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or a drug or biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and their existence has been made public, unless one of the
Food additives.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 173 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348.
Sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (CAS No. 25155-30-0) may be safely used in accordance with the following prescribed conditions:
(a) The additive is an antimicrobial agent used in wash water for fruits and vegetables. The additive may be used at a level not to exceed 111 milligrams per kilogram in the wash water. Fruits and vegetables treated by the additive do not require a potable water rinse.
(b) The additive is limited to use in commissaries, cafeterias, restaurants, retail food establishments, nonprofit food establishments, and other food service operations in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer.
(c) To assure safe use of the additive, the label or labeling of the additive container shall bear, in addition to the other information required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, adequate directions to assure use in compliance with the provisions of this section.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary Safety Zone on the waters of Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio, from 8:30 a.m. on November 27, 2012 until 6:30 p.m. on December 7, 2012. This safety zone will encompass all waters of Maumee River starting from the CSX Railroad Bridge at River Mile Marker 1.07 and ending 700 feet downriver from the CSX Railroad Bridge. This temporary Safety Zone is necessary to protect persons operating in the area.
This temporary final rule is effective December 4, 2012. This rule has been enforced with actual notice since November 27, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2012-0971. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email MST1 Kevin Biami, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419) 418-6008, email
On October 18, 2012, the Coast Guard established a temporary final rule (TFR) entitled Safety Zone; Overhead Cable Replacement, Maumee River, Toledo, OH (docket number USCG-2012-0948) in support of the replacement of electrical cables suspended over the Maumee River. To coincide with the expected schedule of the cable replacement project, that TFR was effective from 9:30 a.m. on October 23, 2012 until 3 p.m. on October 26, 2012. However, due to an equipment failure, an unforeseen breakage of one of the electrical cables and inclement weather conditions, the contractor had requested an extension of the safety zone, and a subsequent TFR was established on October 26, 2012, extending the safety zone from 9:30 a.m. on October 27, 2012 until 3 p.m. on November 2, 2012. Due to the effects of Hurricane Sandy, the contractor was unable to complete the operation and has requested that a new safety zone be established from 8:30 a.m. on November 27, 2012 until 6:30 p.m. on December 7, 2012.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this stage of the operation were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the operation to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the hazards associated with this Coast Guard operation.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
First Energy/Toledo Edison is replacing three overhead power cables that span across the Maumee River near the CSX Railroad Bridge on the Maumee River. All work will be near the CSX Railroad Bridge on the downriver side. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that this stage of the operation continues to pose certain public hazards, including possible entanglement of the power lines in a vessel's propellers if the power lines are dropped onto the Maumee River during the operation.
With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that a safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and vessels during the operation. The temporary safety zone is established herein will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. on November 27, 2012 until 6:30 p.m. on December 7, 2012, and will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on each day of this period.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated on scene representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, designated on scene patrol personnel, or operation personnel.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 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 that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under these Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Although the requesting organization, First Energy/Toledo Edison, is requesting a ten hour block each day for up to eleven days, First Energy/Toledo Edison estimates that the safety zone will only need to be active for forty minutes to three hours on each day. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through the Maumee River, OH between 8:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on November 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, and December 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th 2012.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule is expected to be in effect for only approximately forty minutes to three hours each day. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them. If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule
This rule will 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 rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1) “On-scene Representative” means any Coast Guard Commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to monitor a safety zone, permit entry into the zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within the zones, and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port.
(2) “Public vessel” means vessels owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, excepted as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(3) All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone established in this section when this safety zone is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision amends Regulation 1102—PERMITS, Appendix A to provide permit exemptions for certain internal combustion engines. EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on February 4, 2013 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by January 3, 2013. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0619 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Cathleen Van Osten, (215) 814-2746, or by email at
On April 29, 2008 (73 FR 23101), EPA approved a SIP revision containing provisions to control emissions from stationary generators. The revision added a new regulation, Regulation No. 1144—CONTROL OF STATIONARY GENERATOR EMISSIONS. The regulation established operating requirements, fuel sulfur content limits, and record keeping requirements for stationary generators.
On November 1, 2007, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan. The SIP revision contains amendments to Regulation No. 1102—PERMITS. This amendment clarifies the permitting requirements for owners of stationary generators, specifically adding certain internal combustion engines to the list of exempted sources in Appendix A, of Regulation No. 1102, List of Exempted Sources. The amendment exempts: (a) Any internal combustion engine associated with a stationary electrical generator that (1) has a standby power rating of 450 kilowatts or less that is used only during the times of emergency, (2) is located at any residence, or (3) is located at any commercial poultry producing premise, as these terms are defined in Regulation No. 1144; and (b) any internal combustion fuel burning equipment, which is not associated with a stationary electrical generator, and has an engine power rating of 450 horsepower (hp) or less.
EPA is approving the Delaware SIP revision for Regulation No. 1102-PERMITS submitted on November 1, 2007. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 4, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule; correction.
The Department of Health and Human Services is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Robbin Weyant, Director, Division of Select Agents and Toxins, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., MS A-46, Atlanta, GA 30333. Telephone: (404) 718-2000.
In FR Doc. 2012-24389, published on October 5, 2012 (77 FR 61084) appearing on pages 61086 and 61110, the following corrections are made: Preamble [Corrected]
1. On page 61086, in the second column, second paragraph, beginning on the fourth line, “According to available reports, Lujo virus (1) caused a fatal outbreak of hemorrhagic fever, (2) has a case fatality rate of 80 percent, (3) has been phylogenetically identified as an arenavirus, and (4) is related to those members of the Old World arenaviridae family (Junin, Machupo, Sabia, Guanarito, and Lassa) listed as HHS select agents that cause hemorrhagic fever and pose a significant risk to public health and safety (Ref 2)” is corrected to read: “According to available reports, Lujo virus (1) caused a fatal outbreak of hemorrhagic fever, (2) has a case fatality rate of 80 percent, (3) has been phylogenetically identified as an arenavirus, and (4) is related to those members of the
2. On page, 61110, in the second column, in § 73.0 (Applicability and related requirements), in paragraph one, “All individuals and entities that possess SARS-CoV, Lujo virus, or Chapare virus must provide notice to CDC regarding their possession of SARS-CoV, Lujo virus, or Chapare virus on or before November 5, 2012. Currently registered individuals and entities possessing SARS-CoV, Lujo virus, or Chapare virus must meet all the requirements of this part by December 4, 2012. All previously unregistered individuals and entities possessing SARS-CoV, Lujo virus, or Chapare virus must meet all of the requirements of this part by April 3, 2013 is corrected to read: “All individuals and entities that possess SARS-CoV, Lujo virus, or Chapare virus must provide notice to CDC regarding their possession of SARS-CoV, Lujo virus, or Chapare virus on or before December 4, 2012. Currently registered individuals and entities possessing SARS-CoV, Lujo virus, or Chapare virus must meet all the requirements of this part by December 4, 2012. All previously unregistered individuals and entities possessing SARS-CoV, Lujo virus, or Chapare virus must meet all of the requirements of this part by April 3, 2013.”
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends its rules to reassign to the Office of Managing Director (OMD) certain audit activities formerly assigned to the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The activities concern oversight of the annual audit of the Universal Service Administrative Corporation (USAC) required by the Commission's rules. In addition, the Commission delegates of authority to OMD, in consultation with the Office of General Counsel, to issue subpoenas concerning matters within its jurisdiction.
Effective December 4, 2012.
Office of Managing Director, Financial Operations: call Thomas Buckley at (202) 418-0725.
This is a summary of the Part 54 Audit Authority Transition Order released on October 19, 2012. The Part 54 Audit Authority Transition Order and related Commission documents may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site:
1. Section 54.717 of the Commission's rules requires the USAC “to obtain and pay for an annual audit conducted by an independent auditor to examine its operations and books of account to determine, among other things, whether * * * [USAC] is properly administering the universal service support mechanisms to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.” Since 2006, OIG has been the staff unit responsible for overseeing the conduct of the part 54 audit. The purpose of this annual audit has been to oversee the operations of the Universal Service Administrator and to safeguard the Universal Service Fund from potential waste, fraud, and abuse.
2. The Commission amends section 54.717 of its rules to substitute OMD as the staff unit responsible for overseeing the part 54 USAC audit. In 2010, OMD instructed USAC that OIG would no longer directly conduct or oversee the universal service fund beneficiary and contributor audit plan (BCAP), an audit separate from the part 54 USAC audit. This change was in furtherance of OIG's understanding of its responsibilities consistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (IG Act). As a result, OMD assumed from OIG the responsibility for directing and overseeing USAC's implementation of the BCAP program. Consistent with OIG's request that the part 54 audit function be transferred back to an appropriate Bureau or Office, and because the Commission finds that OMD now oversees the universal service fund BCAP audits and has in place the resources and expertise needed to oversee the part 54 audit as well, the Commission transfers part 54 oversight authority to OMD.
3. Given this augmentation of OMD's role in audit oversight, the Commission also finds it appropriate to delegate limited authority to OMD, upon receiving approval from the Office of General Counsel, to issue subpoenas that directly relate to OMD'S oversight of audits of the USF programs and OMD's review and evaluation of the interstate telecommunications relay services fund, the North American numbering plan, regulatory fee collection, FCC operating expenses, and debt collection. By granting OMD with this specific, limited and discreet subpoena authority, the Commission will ensure that OMD has the necessary tools to obtain all relevant documentation in a timely manner to complete audit findings and implement corrective actions for all of these programs. Absent this delegation, there is the potential that an audited entity in a particular FCC program may resist providing essential data to OMD to confirm that entity is operating consistent with program rules. Providing OMD with this specific, limited and discreet subpoena authority, therefore strengthens OMD's ability to effectively review and evaluate the aforementioned FCC programs in a
4. The rule amendments adopted in this Order involve rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. The notice and comment and effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act are therefore inapplicable.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 5(c), 303(r), 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 CFR part 54 is amended, as set forth below, effective upon publication in the
Classified information, Freedom of information, Government publications, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0 and 54 as follows:
Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended;
(l)
Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements associated with certain of the provisions of the rules adopted as part of the Commission's
The Office of Management and Budget granted approval on November 7, 2012 for the information collection requirements under OMB Control No. 3060-0819.
Jonathan Lechter, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
This document announces that, on November 7, 2012, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on November 7, 2012, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR Sections 54.202(a), 54.401(d), 54.403, 54.404, 54.405(c), 54.405(e) except the portion of paragraph (4) relating to temporary address de-enrollment, 54.407, 54.410(a) through (f), 54.416, 54.417, 54.420, and 54.422.
Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0819.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that respondents submit confidential information to the Commission. We note that the Universal Service Administrative Corporation must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents and contributors to the universal service support program mechanism, must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service support program, and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission. Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.
Needs and Uses: In the
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements (form revisions) associated with the Commission's rules contained in the Third Report and Order, FCC 11-190, pertaining to the policies to promote rural radio service and to streamline allotment and assignment procedures. This notice is consistent with the Third Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the
Cathy Williams on (202) 418-2918 or via email to:
This document announces that, on October 10, 2012, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Third Report and Order, FCC 11-190, published at 77 FR 2916, January 20, 2012. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0031. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the information collection requirements (form revisions for FCC Forms 314 and 315).
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on October 10, 2012, for the form revisions to FCC Forms 314 and 315.
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0031.
The foregoing is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Furthermore, under the Commission's Tribal Priority procedures, entities obtaining:
(a) An AM authorization for which the applicant claimed and received a dispositive Section 307(b) priority because it qualified for the Tribal Priority; or
(b) An FM commercial non-reserved band station awarded:
(1) To the applicant as a singleton Threshold Qualifications Window applicant,
(2) To the applicant after a settlement among Threshold Qualifications Window applicants, or
(3) To the applicant after an auction among a closed group of bidders composed only of threshold qualified Tribal applicants; or
(c) A reserved-band NCE FM station for which the applicant claimed and received the Tribal Priority in a fair distribution analysis as set forth in 47 CFR 73.7002(b)(1), may not assign or transfer the authorization during the period beginning with issuance of the construction permit, until the station has completed four years of on-air operations, unless the assignee or transferee also qualifies for the Tribal Priority. Pursuant to procedures set forth in the Rural Third R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 17645-50, the Tribal Priority Holding Period is now applied in the context of authorizations obtained using Tribal Priority Threshold Qualifications.
Consistent with actions taken by the Commission in the Rural Third R&O, the following changes are made to Forms 314 and 315: Section I of each form includes a question asking applicants to indicate whether any of the authorizations involved in the subject transaction were obtained: after award of a dispositive Section 307(b) preference using the Tribal Priority; through Threshold Qualification procedures; or through the Tribal Priority as applied before the NCE fair distribution analysis. A subsequent question then asks whether both the assignor/transferor and assignee/transferee qualify for the Tribal Priority in all respects. Applicants not meeting the Tribal Priority qualifications and proposing an assignment or transfer during the Holding Period must provide an exhibit demonstrating that the transaction is consistent with the Tribal Priority policies or that a waiver is warranted. The instructions for Section I of Forms 314 and 315 have been revised to assist applicants with completing the questions.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Final rule.
This document amends regulations that prescribe the format and contents labels that manufacturers are required to affix to motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to certify the compliance of those vehicles with U.S. safety standards. The amendment will require specified certification language to be included on the labels affixed to certain types of vehicles.
This rule is effective January 3, 2013. Petitions for reconsideration must be received by NHTSA not later than January 18, 2013.
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule should refer to the docket and notice numbers identified above and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies of the petition be submitted. The petition must be received not later than 45 days after publication of this final rule in the
The petition must contain a brief statement of the complaint and an explanation as to why compliance with the final rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest. Unless otherwise specified in the final rule, the statement and explanation together may not exceed 15 pages in length, but necessary attachments may be appended to the submission without regard to the 15-page limit. If it is requested that additional facts be considered, the petitioner must state the reason why they were not presented to the Administrator within the prescribed time. The Administrator does not consider repetitious petitions and unless the Administrator otherwise provides, the filing of a petition does not stay the effectiveness of the final rule.
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-3151.
NHTSA published a final rule on February 14, 2005 (70 FR 7414) that amended certain provisions of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, that pertain to the certification of motor vehicles to standards administered by NHTSA. In amending the provisions that establish the format and content requirements for certification labels, the agency inadvertently omitted from 49 CFR 576.4(g)(5) the requirement for manufacturers to include a specific certification statement in the labels they affix to certain types of motor vehicles. This rule corrects that inadvertent omission.
This rule was preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking that NHTSA published on August 6, 2012 (77 FR 46677). There were no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, (49 U.S.C. 30112(a), 30115), a motor vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States must be manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and bear a label certifying such compliance that is permanently affixed by the vehicle's original manufacturer. The label constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with the applicable standards. Under 49 CFR 567.4, the label, among other things, must identify the vehicle's manufacturer, its date of manufacture, its gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, the gross axle weight rating or GAWR of each axle, the vehicle type classification (e.g., passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, motorcycle, trailer, low-speed vehicle), and the vehicle's Vehicle Identification Number or “VIN.” The certification label must also contain a variant of the statement: “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.” For example, passenger cars are subject to safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards; therefore, a passenger car certification label must contain the statement: “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.” The expression “U.S.” or “U.S.A.” may be inserted before the word “Federal” as it appears in this statement.
In the final rule published on February 14, 2005 (70 FR 7414), 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5) was amended by replacing the statement “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above” with the language, “One of the following statements, as appropriate” followed by subparagraphs i, ii, and iii, which pertain, respectively, to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, and multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of over 6,000 pounds. Manufacturers of other types of motor vehicles remained subject to the statutory duty to certify those vehicles to the applicable FMVSS. And the logical certification language for these manufacturers to use was: “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.” But due to an inadvertent omission in the course of amendments to the regulations, the regulations did not specifically state that manufacturers of trailers, buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles (those vehicle types not identified by subparagraphs i, ii, and iii) were required to use this specific language. To address this lack of specificity, the agency is amending section 567.4(g) to add a new subparagraph (iv) that covers these vehicle types. Subparagraphs i, ii, and iii remain unchanged.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rulemaking under Executive Order 12886. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not significant under Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Manufacturers are required by statute (49 U.S.C. 30115(a)) to permanently affix a tag or label to a vehicle certifying the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. The agency is not aware of any manufacturer that has discontinued inserting the certification language on the certification labels affixed to trailers, buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles manufactured since the regulations were revised in 2005. Based on this, NHTSA currently anticipates that the costs of the final rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. The rule would have no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There would be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety program.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) provides that no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that the rule being adopted will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. NHTSA makes these statements on the basis that covered entities have been and are subject to a statutory obligation to certify vehicles they manufacture, this rulemaking merely restores text that was part of the regulation before it was last amended in 2005, and manufacturers have continued to affix labels that include the appropriate certification language on trailers, buses, motorcycles, and low-speed vehicles manufactured since then. As a consequence, this rulemaking will not impose any significant costs on anyone. Therefore, it has not been necessary for NHTSA to conduct a regulatory evaluation or Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this rulemaking.
The costs of the 2005 amendments were analyzed at the time they were issued as a final rule. At that time, we explained that the rule did not impose
The agency is not aware that any vehicle manufacturers have stopped including the certification language that is the subject of this rule on the labels they affix to trailers, buses, motorcycles, or low-speed vehicles. For this reason, we view this rulemaking as merely restoring to the regulation text that was inadvertently omitted in the 2005 amendment and find that there is no change in the meaning or application of the rule as explained in the preamble at 70 FR 7414.
Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” Executive Order 13132 defines the term “policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking action.
Executive Order 12988 requires that agencies review proposed regulations and legislation and adhere to the following general requirements: (1) The agency's proposed legislation and regulations shall be reviewed by the agency to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) The agency's proposed legislation and regulations shall be written to minimize litigation; and (3) The agency's proposed legislation and regulations shall provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and shall promote simplification and burden reduction.
When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988 specifically requires the agency to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of regulations.
NHTSA has reviewed this rulemaking according to the general requirements and the specific requirements for regulations set forth in Executive Order 12988. This rulemaking simply restores text that existed before the regulation was amended in 2005 and makes clear the requirement that manufacturers include language in the certification labels that they must affix to vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30115 and the regulations at 49 CFR part 567. This change does not result in any preemptive effect and does not have a retroactive effect. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding is not required before parties may file suit in court.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Because this final rule will not require the expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final rule includes a “collection of information,” as that term is defined in 5 CFR part 1320
OMB has approved NHTSA's collection of information associated with motor vehicle labeling requirements under OMB clearance no. 2127-0512,
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This rulemaking is not economically significant and does not concern an environmental, health, or safety risk.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, with explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
In this final rule, we are adding to 49 CFR 576.4(g)(5) the requirement that manufacturers include in the certification labels that they affix to certain types of motor vehicles a statement certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS. This language was inadvertently omitted from the regulation in 2005 and we are adopting no substantive changes to the regulation nor do we propose any technical standards. For these reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA would not apply.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 567, Certification, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 32502, 32504, 33101-33104, 33108, and 33109; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(g) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) For all other vehicles, the statement: “This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.” The expression “U.S.” or “U.S.A.” may be inserted before the word “Federal”.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
NHTSA is amending the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment to restore the blue and green color boundaries that were removed when the agency published a final rule reorganizing that standard on December 4, 2007.
Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Docket Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
For technical issues: Ms. Marisol Medri, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-6987) (Fax: (202) 366-7002).
For legal issues: Mr. Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-2992) (Fax: (202) 366-3820).
FMVSS No. 108,
SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC (SABIC-IP) sent a letter to NHTSA on August 11, 2008, after the final rule comment period was over. In this letter, SABIC-IP stated that the agency did not allow for public comment when it made the decision to remove the blue and green color boundaries from the standard. SABIC-IP further stated that in removing the blue and green color boundaries from paragraph S14.4.1.3.2, the agency substantively changed the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 during the rewrite process. On July 13, 2011, NHTSA published a NPRM
In the NPRM, the agency explained that while neither blue nor green are directly permitted by the standard, it is possible to use these color boundaries to certify a material to the outdoor exposure test. Once individually certified to the three year outdoor exposure test, the blue and clear material could be mixed to produce a clear material with a blue tint, which could then be used in a lamp lens provided the lamp itself emits light within the white color boundary. Under the standard, the mixed material can be certified to the outdoor exposure test without an additional three years of testing. The pre-rewrite version of the standard contained two tests for determining compliance with the color requirements in the standard, the Visual Method or the Tristimulus Method. The blue and green color boundary definitions that were removed are part of the color requirements of the Tristimulus method procedure. The NPRM proposed to amend FMVSS No. 108 to restore the color boundary definitions for green, restricted blue and signal blue so that the requirements of the rewrite coincide with those of the old standard.
NHTSA received four public comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this rulemaking.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the “Alliance”) supported the rulemaking but stated that the agency omitted the color requirements for green and blue when tested according to the visual method. The Alliance claimed that these requirements from SAE J578c
SABIC-IP submitted a comment urging the agency to restore the green and blue color boundaries to FMVSS No. 108. SABIC-IP also requested that the agency clarify that polymers and additives would not have to be retested to the three year outdoor exposure test after the effective date of the administrative rewrite before being combined to create new materials. SABIC-IP stated that the rewrite of the standard creates ambiguity as to whether combinations of individually certified materials can continue to be mixed to create new material and then certified to the outdoor exposure test without an additional three years of testing as was permitted under the pre-write version of the standard. SABIC-IP requested that NHTSA amend paragraph S14.4.2.2.2 to state that materials and additives used in plastics could be changed without outdoor exposure testing if the materials had previously been tested to FMVSS No. 108 and found to meet the requirements. Paragraph S14.4.2.2.2 currently states that materials and additives used in plastics can be changed without outdoor exposure testing if the materials have previously been tested to “this section” and found to meet the requirements. SABIC-IP believes that it is possible to interpret the use of the words “this section” in paragraph S14.4.2.2.2 to require that materials be retested to the outdoor exposure test in the new paragraph S14.4.2.2.2, published in December 2007, before they can be used to create new materials. SABIC-IP stated that this interpretation would go against the stated goal of the rewrite of the standard to refrain from making any substantive change to the requirements.
SABIC-IP also asked the agency to clarify that the lower concentration of additive of previously tested materials used to create a new material according to S14.4.2.2.2 paragraph can be represented by a composition of zero.
Since it was not the agency's intention to create any substantive modifications to the standard, we have decided to amend FMVSS No. 108 to add the color boundary definitions for green, restricted blue and signal blue to the Tristimulus method procedure as proposed in the NPRM and to include the two missing color requirements from the visual method procedure so that the requirements of the rewrite coincide with those of the old standard.
We have decided not to amend paragraph S14.4.2.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108 as requested by SABIC-IP over the course of the rewrite rulemaking. We attempted, where ever possible, to avoid changes to the language of the standard. We note that the phrase “this section” refers to the requirements of paragraph S14.4.2.2 in general, not to a specific version of the standard. Thus, so long as the additives and polymers have previously been tested to and found to comply with the same substantive requirements as they appear in FMVSS No. 108, they can be added to create new materials without additional outdoor exposure testing. However, if the requirements of S14.4.2.2 were changed, previously tested additives and polymers would no longer have been tested to “this section” and would have to be retested to the outdoor exposure test before being used to create new materials under paragraph S14.4.2.2.2.
The agency will respond to SABIC-IP's comment about the lower concentration of additive used to create new materials being represented by a composition of zero in a letter of interpretation from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel.
The National Highway and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states that an FMVSS issued by NHTSA cannot become effective before 180 days after the standard is issued unless the agency makes a good cause finding that a different effective date is in the public interest. Additionally, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) requires that a rule be published 30 days prior to its effective date unless one of three exceptions applies. One of these exceptions is when the agency finds good cause for a shorter period. We have determined that it is in the public interest for this final rule to have an immediate effective date so that the effective date of this final rule coincides as closely as possible with the effective date of the 2007 rewrite of the standard. An effective date for this final rule that
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. This final rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
This Final Rule restores existing requirements to the standard thereby maintaining flexibility in compliance for manufacturers who choose to use these colors to certify materials to the outdoor exposure test. Because this Final Rule merely restores existing requirements it is not expected to have any costs. The agency expects some minor unquantifiable benefits to manufacturers due to the continued availability of the green and blue color boundaries to certify to the outdoor exposure test. Because there are not any costs associated with this rulemaking and only minor unquantifiable benefits, we have not prepared a separate economic analysis for this rulemaking.
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l
NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: “When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision set forth above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved.However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final rule would not establish any new information collection requirements.
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Public Law 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” This Final Rule would not adopt or reference any new industry or consensus standards that were not already present in FMVSS No. 108.
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this final rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule would not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually.
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as set forth below.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
S14.4.1.3.2.4Green. Green is not acceptable if it is less saturated (paler), yellower, or bluer than the limit standards.
S14.4.1.3.2.5Blue. Blue is not acceptable if it is less saturated (paler), greener, or redder than the limit standards.
S14.4.1.4.2.4Green. The color of light emitted must fall within the following boundaries:
S14.4.1.4.2.5Restricted Blue. The color of light emitted must fall within the following boundaries:
S14.4.1.4.2.6Signal Blue. The color of light emitted must fall within the following boundaries:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is broadening the scope of individuals and entities approved to complete vessel fish hold capacity certifications for vessels issued Tier 1 and 2 limited access Atlantic mackerel permits under the Atlantic
Effective on December 3, 2012.
Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, including the Framework Document, are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The Framework Document is also accessible via the Internet at
Lindsey Feldman, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-675-2179, fax 978-281-9135.
NMFS published a proposed rule for Framework Adjustment 5 on September 21, 2012 (77 FR 58507). Additional background information and detail on why and how Framework Adjustment 5 was developed are included in the proposed rule, and are not repeated here. Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP (76 FR 68642, November 7, 2011) implemented a three-tiered mackerel limited access program in which all qualifiers were required to have possessed a valid permit on March 21, 2007. The final rule implementing Amendment 11 provided that a fish hold capacity certification must be made by an individual credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the National Association of Marine Surveyors (NAMS), or by an individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors (SAMS). Vessel owners who have received a certification of their vessel's fish hold capacity by the Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures also meet the fish hold capacity requirement. Vessel owners are required to submit documentation in support of their vessel's certified fish hold capacity to NMFS by December 31, 2012, or their first vessel replacement or upgrade, whichever comes first.
This action revises the fish hold capacity certification requirement to allow additional individuals or entities beyond those with credentials approved in Amendment 11 to complete fish hold capacity certifications. This framework action does not make any changes from the proposed rule and expands the range of individuals and entities that are approved to complete hold capacity certifications and allow them also to be completed by employees or agents of a classification society approved by the Coast Guard pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3316(c), Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures, a professionally licensed and/or registered Marine Engineer, or a Naval Architect with a professional engineer license. This action also extends the date that vessels are required to submit fish hold capacity measurements by 1 year. Due to a delay in rulemaking, vessels with mackerel Tier 1 and 2 permits will be required to submit fish hold capacity measurements by December 31, 2013, or their first vessel replacement or upgrade, whichever comes first, instead of December 31, 2012.
NMFS received four comments on the proposed rule for Framework Adjustment 5 from: Lund's Fisheries, Inc., a processing facility in Cape May, NJ; Quest Marine Services, a marine surveying company; a vessel owner with a mackerel permit; and a member of the general public.
The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that this framework adjustment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMPs is necessary for the conservation and management of the Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, fisheries and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received, and no new information has been received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this action. Due to a delay in rulemaking, this action extends the deadline for Tier 1 and 2 Atlantic mackerel vessels to complete vessel hold capacity measurements from December 31, 2012, to December 31, 2013. If the effectiveness of this rule was delayed for 30-days from the date of publication, vessels issued Tier 1 and 2 mackerel permits would still be required to submit hold capacity measurements by December 31, 2012, therefore invalidating the 1 year extension in this action. Because the majority of Tier 1 and 2 mackerel vessels have been waiting to obtain and submit vessel hold capacity measurements to NMFS until this rulemaking was published in the
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(H) * * *
(
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -200C, -300, and -400 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the corners of the door frame and the cross beams of the aft cargo door, and corrective actions if necessary. The existing AD also requires a modification to the aft cargo door, which terminates the repetitive inspections. Since we issued that AD, we have received reports of cracking on doors on airplanes that were not included in the existing AD. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability, add inspections and related investigative and corrective actions, and revise certain inspection types. This proposed AD would also reduce the compliance time, for certain doors, to do a modification of the doors. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the corners of the door frame and the cross beams of the aft cargo door, which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 18, 2013.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6450; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On July 2, 2001, we issued AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -200C, -300, and -400 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the corners of the door frame and the cross beams of the aft cargo door, and corrective actions, if necessary. That AD also requires a modification to the aft cargo door, which terminates the repetitive inspections. That AD resulted from reports of cracking in the forward and aft corner frame of the aft cargo door and in the lower cross beam. We issued that AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the corners of the door frame and the cross beams of the aft cargo door, which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001), we received reports of cracking on doors on airplanes that were not included in the existing AD. Therefore, we have determined that the applicability of AD 2000-06-13 R1 must be expanded to include all The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes in order to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The existing AD also bases compliance times and repetitive intervals on airplane flight cycles. Since that AD was issued, we have determined that door interchangeability has a significant impact on addressing the unsafe condition. Doors may be rotated from airplane to airplane, and a door may have accumulated considerably more cycles than the
In addition, more work is necessary on airplanes that have not accomplished the repair or preventive modification specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999, or previous issues of that service bulletin. We have also determined that the compliance time to do a modification of those doors should be reduced. We referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions specified in AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001). We have also determined that additional work is necessary on airplanes on which certain repairs and modifications specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999, or previous issues of that service bulletin, have been done.
We reviewed the following service information:
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, dated December 17, 2010.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all the requirements of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001). This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
The phrase “related investigative actions” might be used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) are actions that further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
In addition, the phrase “corrective actions” might be used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
Since AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001), was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:
We have revised the retained paragraph (d) of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001) (which corresponds to paragraph (k) of this proposed AD), by removing reference to Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test Manual, Part 6, Chapter 51-00-00 (Figure 4 or Figure 23) for the high frequency eddy current inspection. Instead, we have added Note 1 to paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to specify that guidance on the inspection can be found in Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test Manual, Part 6, Chapter 51-00-00 (Figure 4 or Figure 23).
We have also moved the method of compliance specified in Note 3 of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001), into paragraph (m) of this proposed AD.
We have also revised the language for the credit for previous service information specified in Note 4 of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001), and included it in paragraph (n) of this proposed AD.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737 52-1154, dated December 17, 2010; specify to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010, references an incorrect part number for reinforcement angles. Paragraph (q) of this proposed AD specifies the correct part number.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010; specify accomplishing supplemental structural inspections. Those inspections are not required by this proposed AD. The damage tolerance inspections specified in those service bulletins may be used in support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(b)(2)).
For certain actions, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 581 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary related investigative and corrective actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 18, 2013.
This AD supersedes AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001), which revised AD 2000-06-13, Amendment 39-11654 (65 FR 17583, April 4, 2000). AD 2000-06-13 superseded AD 98-25-06, Amendment 39-10931 (63 FR 67769, December 9, 1998).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the forward and aft corner frame of the aft cargo door and in the lower cross beam. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the corners of the door frame and the cross beams of the aft cargo door, which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Paragraphs (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD are restated from AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001). These paragraphs apply to Model 737-200 and -200C series airplanes, line numbers 6 through 873 inclusive; and Model 737-200, -200C, -300, and -400 series airplanes, line numbers 874 through 1642 inclusive; equipped with an aft cargo door having Boeing part number (P/N) 65-47952-1 or P/N 65-47952-524, excluding airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Those airplanes on which that door has been modified as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079. Or,
(2) Those airplanes on which the door assembly having P/N 65-47952-524 includes four straps (P/Ns 65-47952-139, 65-47952-140, 65-47952-141, and 65-47952-142) and a thicker lower cross beam web (P/N 65-47952-157).
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (a) of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001), with revised service information. For airplanes identified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 90 days or 700 flight cycles after December 24, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-25-06, Amendment 39-10931 (63 FR 67769, December 9, 1998)), whichever occurs later, perform an internal detailed visual inspection to detect cracking of the corners of the door frame and the cross beams of the aft cargo door, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010. Accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph (l) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph. Doing the inspections required by paragraph (p) or (s) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
(1) If no cracking is detected, accomplish the requirements of either paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Repeat the internal visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles. Or
(ii) Prior to further flight, modify the corners of the door frame and the cross beams of the aft cargo door, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010. Accomplishment of such modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this AD.
(2) If any cracking is detected in the upper or lower cross beams, prior to further flight, modify the cracked beam, in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996; Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999; or Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010. Accomplishment of such modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this AD for the modified beam.
(3) If any cracking is detected in the forward or aft upper door frame, prior to further flight, repair the frame and modify the corners of the door frame of the aft cargo door, in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996; Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999; or Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010; except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD. Accomplishment of such modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this AD for the upper door frame.
(4) If any cracking is detected in the forward or aft lower door frame, prior to further flight, replace the damaged frame with a new frame, and modify the corners of the door frame of the aft cargo door, in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996; Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999; or Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010. Accomplishment of such modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this AD for the lower door frame.
This paragraph restates the requirement of paragraph (b) of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001). For actions required by paragraphs (h) and (l) of this AD: Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010; specifies that certain repairs are to be accomplished in accordance with instructions received from Boeing, this AD requires that, prior to further flight, such repairs be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (x) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the corrective action required by paragraph (c) of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001), with revised service information. If any cracking of the outer chord of the upper or lower cross beams of the aft cargo door is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the repair specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3), or (j)(4) of this AD. For a repair method to be approved, as required by paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(3), and (j)(4) of this AD, the approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(1) Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO.
(2) Repair in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010.
(3) Repair in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings.
(4) Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (d) of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001), with revised service information. For airplanes identified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 4,500 flight cycles or 1 year after May 9, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-06-13, amendment 39-11654 (65 FR 17583, April 4, 2000), whichever occurs later, perform a high frequency eddy current inspection (HFEC) to detect cracking of the four corners of the door frame of the aft cargo door, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (x) of this AD, or in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010. Accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph (l) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph. Doing the inspections required by paragraph (p) or (s) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
Additional guidance for the inspection can be found in Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test Manual, Part 6, Chapter 51-00-00 (Figure 4 or Figure 23).
(1) If no cracking of the corners of the door frame of the aft cargo door is detected, repeat the HFEC inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles until accomplishment of the modification specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(2) If any cracking of the corners of the door frame of the aft cargo door is detected, prior to further flight, replace the damaged frame with a new frame, and modify the four corners of the door frame, in accordance with Part II and Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996; Part II and Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999; or Part III and Part IV of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010. Accomplishment of such modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this AD for that door frame.
This paragraph restates the action required by paragraph (e) of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001), with revised service information. For airplanes identified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 4 years or 12,000 flight cycles after August 15, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2000-06-13 R1), whichever occurs later, modify the four corners of the door frame and the cross beams of the aft cargo door, in accordance with Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996; Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999; or Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010. Accomplishment of that modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the method of compliance of Note 3 of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001). Accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph (a) of AD 90-06-02, Amendment 39-6489 (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990), is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the credit given for service information specified in Note 4 of AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001). This paragraph provides credit for the modification of the corners of the door frame and the cross beams of the aft cargo door required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if the modification was accomplished prior to August 15, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2000-06-13 R1), using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, dated December 16, 1983; Revision 1, dated December 15, 1988; Revision 2, dated July 20, 1989; Revision 3, dated May 17, 1990; or Revision 4, dated February 21, 1991.
At the applicable time specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011, except as provided by paragraph (u)(1) of this AD: Inspect the door to determine the configuration, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (o) of this AD, any door is determined to be from any airplane having line numbers 6 through 873 inclusive, and neither the modification nor the repair specified in any service bulletin identified in paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(7) of this AD has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Do a one-time HFEC and a one-time ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the upper and lower corner frames and the upper and lower cross beams, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Parts II, III, IV, and VI of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010; and, as applicable, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, dated December 17, 2010, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, Revision 1, dated August 3, 2011; except as provided by paragraphs (u)(2) and (u)(3) of this AD. Do the inspections at the applicable time specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010; except as provided by paragraph (u)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. If no cracking is found during the initial inspections, before further flight, do the modification in accordance with Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010. Doing the inspection specified in this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD.
(1) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, dated December 16, 1983.
(2) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 1, dated December 15, 1988.
(3) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 2, dated July 20, 1989.
(4) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 3, dated May 17, 1990.
(5) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 4, dated February 21, 1991.
(6) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996.
(7) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (o) of this AD, any door is determined to be from any airplane having line numbers 6 through 873 inclusive: At the applicable time specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010, except as provided by paragraph (u)(4) of this AD, inspect the lower corner frames to determine if the door has reinforcement angles, P/N 65C25180-9, -43, -10, -11, or -12, that were installed as specified in any service bulletin identified in paragraphs (q)(1) through (q)(5) of this AD. If any affected reinforcement angle is found, do a one-time general visual inspection for edge margin and do a detailed inspection for cracks; in accordance with Part V of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010.
(1) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, dated December 16, 1983.
(2) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 1, dated December 15, 1988.
(3) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 2, dated July 20, 1989.
(4) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 3, dated May 17, 1990.
(5) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 4, dated February 21, 1991.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (q) of this AD, any crack is found, or if any edge margin does not meet the specification identified in Part V of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
(1) Replace the corner reinforcement angle, in accordance with Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010.
(2) Do a one-time detailed inspection or HFEC inspection for cracking at the forward and aft ends of cross beam D, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, dated December 17, 2010. If any cracking is found, before further flight, do all applicable repairs in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, dated December 17, 2010, except as provided by paragraph (u)(2) of this AD.
(3) Do a one-time detailed inspection or ultrasonic inspection for cracking on the frames, in accordance with Part 2 (detailed inspection) or Part 8 (ultrasonic inspection) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, dated December 17, 2010, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, Revision 1, dated August 3, 2011. If any cracking is found, before further flight, replace the frame in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010.
If, during the action required by paragraph (o) of this AD, a door is determined to be from an airplane having line numbers 874 and subsequent: At the applicable time specified in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011, except as provided by paragraph (u)(1) of this AD, do high frequency and detailed inspections for cracks in the forward and aft ends of cross beam E, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Parts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011; and, as applicable, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, dated December 17, 2010, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, Revision 1, dated August 3, 2011; except as provided by paragraph (u)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions at the applicable time specified in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011, except as provided by paragraph (u)(1) of this AD. If no cracking is found during the inspections specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011, at the applicable time specified in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011, except as provided by paragraph (u)(1) of this AD, do the modification in accordance with Parts 5 and 6, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the times specified in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011, until the preventative modification or repair is done to both ends of cross beam E in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011. Doing the inspection specified in this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD.
If, during the actions required by paragraph (o) of this AD, a door is determined to be from an airplane having line numbers 874 and subsequent: At the applicable time specified in Tables 3 and 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011, except as provided by paragraph (u)(1) of this AD, do a one-time ultrasonic inspection of the frame and a detailed inspection of the reinforcing angle for cracks of the forward and aft ends of cross beam E, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Parts 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011; and, as applicable; the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, dated December 17, 2010, as revised by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, Revision 1, dated August 3, 2011; except as provided by paragraph (u)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
The following exceptions apply to this AD.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-52-1154, dated December 17, 2010, specifies to contact Boeing for repair, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (x) of this AD.
(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010, specifies to contact Boeing for repair, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (x) of this AD.
(4) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010, specifies a compliance time “from the date of Revision 7 to this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
The supplemental structural inspections specified in Tables 5 and 6 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011; and Tables 3 and 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010; are not required by this AD.
The damage tolerance inspections specified in Tables 5 and 6 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011; and Tables 3 and 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010; may be used in support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(b)(2)). The corresponding actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions and figures of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1153, dated July 13, 2011; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 7, dated December 17, 2010; are not required by this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (p), (q), and (r) of this AD, if the actions were accomplished before the effective date of this AD using any service information specified in paragraph (w)(1), (w)(2), (w)(3), (w)(4), (w)(5), (w)(6), or (w)(7) of this AD.
(1) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, dated December 16, 1983.
(2) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 1, dated December 15, 1988.
(3) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 2, dated July 20, 1989.
(4) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 3, dated May 17, 1990.
(5) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 4, dated February 21, 1991.
(6) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996.
(7) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2000-06-13, Amendment 39-11654 (65 FR 17583, April 4, 2000); and AD 2000-06-13 R1, Amendment 39-12317 (66 FR 36146, July 11, 2001); are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6450; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a free-play check for excessive free-play of the shaft swaged bearing installed in the tailstock end of each elevator power control unit (PCU), and replacing any PCU on which the bearing exceeds allowable limits with a serviceable PCU. Since we issued that AD, we have determined that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability in the existing AD. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct excessive freeplay of the swaged bearings, which could lead to excessive airframe vibrations and difficulties in pitch control, and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 18, 2013.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7318; fax (516) 794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On June 14, 2011, we issued AD 2011-13-08, Amendment 39-16731 (76 FR 37253, June 27, 2011). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes.
Since we issued the existing AD (76 FR 37253, June 27, 2011), we have determined that additional airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition. Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-28R1, dated June 12, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Several reports have been received on the elevator power control units (PCUs) where the shaft (tailstock) swaged bearing liners had shown a higher than normal rate of wear. Investigation revealed that the excessive wear was due to the paint contamination between the bearing roller and bearing liner. The bearing paint contamination is known to be abrasive and could seize the bearing.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to excessive airframe vibrations and difficulties in aircraft pitch control.
This [TCCA] directive mandates a free-play check of the shaft swaged bearing installed in the elevator PCU tailstock end and replacement of the shaft swaged bearings if excessive free-play is found.
This [TCCA] AD is revised to amend the applicability for DHC-8 Series 400 aeroplanes.
The unsafe condition is loss of controllability of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Bombardier Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 84-27-52, Revision A, dated March 5, 2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 81 products of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2011-13-08, Amendment 39-16731 (76 FR 37253, June 27, 2011), and retained in this proposed AD take about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $255 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators for the added airplanes to be $255 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $33, for a cost of $458 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive AD 2011-13-08, Amendment 39-16731 (76 FR 37253, June 27, 2011), and adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by January 18, 2013.
This AD supersedes AD 2011-13-08, Amendment 39-16731 (76 FR 37253, June 27, 2011).
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes; certificated in any category; having serial numbers (S/Ns) 4001 through 4334 inclusive, and 4336.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of replacement of several elevator power control units (PCUs) due to worn swaged bearings located in the elevator PCU tailstock. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct excessive freeplay of the swaged bearings, which could lead to excessive airframe vibrations and difficulties in pitch control, and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2011-13-08, Amendment 39-16731 (76 FR 37253, June 27, 2011), with revised service information. For airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD, except airplanes having S/N 4305 through 4334 inclusive, and 4336: At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, perform a free-play check for any shaft swaged bearing having part number (P/N) MS14103-7 that is installed in the tailstock end of each elevator PCU (three PCUs per elevator surface) having P/Ns 390600-1007 and 390600-1009, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Part A, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, dated May 25, 2010; or Revision A, dated March 5, 2012. As of the effective date of this AD, only Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, Revision A, dated March 5, 2012, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 8,000 or more total flight hours as of August 1, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-13-08, Amendment 39-16731 (76 FR 37253, June 27, 2011)): Within 2,000 flight hours after August 1, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-13-08).
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 8,000 total flight hours as of August 1, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-13-08, Amendment 39-16731 (76 FR 37253, June 27, 2011)): Within 6,000 flight hours after August 1, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-13-08), or before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2011-13-08, Amendment 39-16731 (76 FR 37253, June 27, 2011), with revised service information. If, during the check required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the bearing free-play is within the limits specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, dated May 25, 2010, or Revision A, dated March 5, 2012; no further action is required by this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, Revision A, dated March 5, 2012, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2011-13-08, Amendment 39-16731 (76 FR 37253, June 27, 2011), with revised service information. If, during the check required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the bearing free-play exceeds the limits specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, dated May 25, 2010; or Revision A, dated March 5, 2012: Before further flight, replace the elevator PCU with a serviceable one, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Part B, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, dated May 25, 2010; or Revision A, dated March 5, 2012. As of the effective date of this AD, only Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, Revision A, dated March 5, 2012, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.
For airplanes having S/N 4305 through 4334 inclusive, and 4336: At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, perform a free-play check for any shaft swaged bearing having P/N MS14103-7 that is installed in the tailstock end of each elevator PCU (three PCUs per elevator surface), having P/Ns 390600-1007 and 390600-1009, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Part A, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, Revision A, dated March 5, 2012.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 8,000 or more total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 8,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, or before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
During the check required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if the bearing free-play is found to exceed the limits specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, Revision A, dated March 5, 2012: Before further flight, replace the elevator PCU with a serviceable one, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Part B, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, Revision A, dated March 5, 2012.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-28R1, dated June 12, 2012, and the service information specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (l)(1)(ii) of this AD, for related information.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-52, dated May 25, 2010.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 87-27-52, Revision A, dated March 5, 2012.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid contamination found in the strut forward dry bay. This proposed AD would require repetitive general visual inspections of the strut forward dry bay for the presence of hydraulic fluid, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct hydraulic fluid contamination of the strut forward dry bay, which could result in hydrogen embrittlement of the titanium forward engine mount bulkhead fittings, and consequent inability of the fittings to carry engine loads, resulting in the loss or departure of an engine. Hydraulic embrittlement could cause a through-crack formation across the fittings through which an engine fire could breach into the strut, resulting in an uncontained strut fire.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 18, 2013.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1;
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6501; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports of hydraulic fluid contamination in the strut forward dry bay caused by the clogged and blocked forward strut drain lines not allowing fluids (water, fuel, engine oil and hydraulic) to drain properly, resulting in fluids backing up to the dry bay. The presence of hydraulic fluid and temperatures above 270 degrees Fahrenheit can cause hydrogen embrittlement of the titanium forward engine mount bulkhead fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the inability of the forward engine mount bulkhead fittings to carry engine loads, resulting in the loss or departure of an engine; or cause a through-crack formation across the fittings through which an engine fire could breach into the strut, resulting in an uncontained strut fire.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012. The service information describes procedures for repetitive general visual inspections for hydraulic fluid contamination of the strut forward dry bay, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Related investigative actions include a detailed inspection for hydraulic fluid coking, heat discoloration, damage to sealant and primer, damage to leveling compound, cracking, and etching or pitting of the interior strut forward dry bay; a detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking, etching, or pitting of the bulkhead upper and lower fittings of the strut forward engine mount; and checking drain lines for blockage. Corrective actions include cleaning and restoring sealant, primer, and leveling compound of the detail parts in the strut forward dry bay; cleaning or replacing drain lines; and contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions and doing the repair.
The compliance time for the initial inspection is within 600 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first. The compliance times for the related investigative actions are before further flight. The compliance times for corrective actions vary between before further flight, and within 25 flight cycles or 10 days, whichever occurs first (depending on the condition). The repetitive inspection intervals do not exceed 1,200 flight cycles.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
Although the service bulletin specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposed AD would require operators to repair those conditions using a method approved by the FAA.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition repair specified in this proposed AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by January 18, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; equipped with Pratt & Whitney 4000 engines; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/pylons.
This AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid contamination found in the strut forward dry bay. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct hydraulic fluid contamination of the strut forward dry bay, which could result in hydrogen embrittlement of the titanium forward engine mount bulkhead fittings, and consequent inability of the fittings to carry engine loads, resulting in the loss or departure of an engine. Hydraulic embrittlement could cause a through-crack formation across the fittings through which an engine fire could breach into the strut, resulting in an uncontained strut fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012: Do a general visual inspection for hydraulic fluid contamination of the interior of the strut forward dry bay, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012. Except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012.
(1) Where the Compliance time column of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012, refers to the compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for repair: Except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012, repair, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(3) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6501; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of meetings.
This notice announces three fact-finding informal airspace meetings to solicit information from airspace users and others, concerning a proposal to revise the Class B airspace at Miami, FL, and the Class C airspace at Ft Lauderdale, FL. The purpose of these meetings is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present views, recommendations, and comments on the proposal. All comments received will be considered prior to any issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The informal airspace meetings will be held on Monday, January 28, 2013; Tuesday, January 29, 2013; and Wednesday, January 30, 2013. One meeting session will be held on January 28, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Two sessions will be held on January 29 and January 30, beginning at 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Comments must be received on or before March 4, 2013.
(1) The meeting on Monday, January 28, 2013, will be held at the Wings Over Miami Air Museum, Kendall-Tamiami Executive Airport, 14710 SW 128th St., Miami, FL 33196 [Call 305-233-5197 for directions]; (2) The meeting on Tuesday, January 29, 2013, will be held at the Miami Dade College, 2460 NW 66th Avenue, Bldg. 701, Room 213, Miami, FL 33122 [Call 305-588-1959 for directions]; and (3) The meeting on Wednesday, January 30, 2013, will be held at the Miramar Town Center, 2050 Civic Center Place. Miramar, FL 33025 [Call 954-201-8084 for directions].
Tony Russo, Support Manager, Miami ATCT/TRACON, 6400 NW. 22nd St., Miami, FL 33122; Telephone: 305-869-5403.
(a) The meetings will be open to all persons on a space-available basis. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend and participate.
(b) The meetings will be informal in nature and will be conducted by one or more representatives of the FAA Eastern Service Area. Each participant will be given an opportunity to make a presentation, although a time limit may be imposed. Each person wishing to make a presentation to the FAA panel will be asked to sign in so those time frames can be established. The meetings may be adjourned at any time if all persons present have had an opportunity to speak.
(c) Position papers or other handout material relating to the substance of these meetings will be accepted. Participants submitting handout materials should present an original and two copies to the presiding officer. There should be an adequate number of copies for distribution to all participants.
(e) These meetings will not be formally recorded. However, a summary of comments made at the meetings will be filed in the docket.
Information gathered through these meetings will assist the FAA in drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The public will be afforded the opportunity to comment on any NPRM published on this matter.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to amend and harmonize minimum altitudes for use of autopilots for transport category airplanes. The proposed rule would enable the operational use of advanced autopilot and navigation systems by incorporating the capabilities of new and future autopilots, flight guidance systems, and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) guidance systems while protecting the continued use of legacy systems at current autopilot minimum use altitudes. The proposed rule would accomplish this through a performance-based approach, using the certified capabilities of autopilot systems as established by the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or as approved by the Administrator.
Send comments on or before February 4, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number Docket No.: FAA-2012-1059 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Kel O. Christianson, FAA, Aviation Safety Inspector, Performance Based Flight Systems Branch (AFS-470), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-385-4702; email
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert H. Frenzel, Manager, Operations Law Branch, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (AGC-220), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-3073; email
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. This amendment to the regulation is within the scope of that authority because it prescribes an accepted method for ensuring the safe operation of aircraft while using autopilot systems.
The FAA proposes to amend and harmonize minimum altitudes for use of autopilots for transport category airplanes in order to streamline and simplify these operational rules. The proposed rule would enable the operational use of advanced autopilot and navigation systems by incorporating the capabilities of new and future autopilots, flight guidance systems, and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) guidance systems while protecting the continued use of legacy systems. This would allow the FAA to enable the benefits of Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) technologies and procedures (Optimized Profile Descents, Performance Based Navigation (PBN)) to enhance aviation safety in the National Airspace System (NAS). The rule would accomplish this through a performance-based approach, using the certified capabilities of autopilot systems as established by the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). The proposal would also give the FAA Administrator the authorization to require an altitude higher than the AFM if the Administrator believes it to be in the interest of public safety.
Currently, operators have a choice whether or not to update their aircraft with new autopilots as they are developed and certified by equipment manufacturers. This rule would not affect that decision-making process and would protect operators who choose to continue to operate as they do today. As a result, the proposed rule would not impose any additional costs on certificate holders that operate under parts 121, 125, or 135. Also, by setting new minimum altitudes for each phase of flight that certified equipment may operate to, the proposed rule would give manufacturers more certainty that new products could be used as they are developed.
In response to Executive Order 13563 issued by President Obama on January 18, 2011, the proposed rule was first identified for inclusion in the Department of Transportation Retrospective Regulatory Review (May 2011), noting that the current minimum altitudes for use of autopilots were unduly restrictive and would limit the ability to use new technologies. On May 10, 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order 13610, establishing the Retrospective Regulatory Review as an on-going obligation. The proposed rule would also be consistent with the requirement in Executive Order 13610 to modify or streamline regulations “in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of new technologies.”
The FAA and Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) technical standards for autopilot systems date back to 1947. These standards have been revised eight times since 1959, but the operating rules for autopilot minimum use altitudes in 14 CFR 121.579, 125.329, and 135.93 have not been amended in any significant way since the recodification of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) and Civil Aviation Manuals (CAM) on December 31, 1964.
By contrast, autopilot certification standards contained in § 25.1329 were updated as recently as April 11, 2006. Consequently, operational regulations in parts 121, 125, and 135 do not adequately reflect the capabilities of modern technologies in use today and thus make it difficult to keep pace with the FAA's implementation of NextGen.
The FAA published an NPRM in the
In 1997, the FAA amended 14 CFR 121.579, 125.329, and 135.93 to permit certificate holders the use of an approved autopilot system for takeoff, based on the 1994 NPRM and an expectation that autopilot technology would continue to advance (62 FR 27922; May 21, 1997). This authorization was given to certificate holders through an Operations Specification (OpSpec), which was implemented as a stopgap measure. The rule itself was not changed to provide manufacturers and operators the guidance for producing and operating new aircraft capable of attaining lower autopilot minimum use altitudes. The amendment also failed to address autopilot minimum use altitudes on instrument approaches or harmonize 14 CFR parts 121, 125 and 135.
Since 1997, multiple groups have been formed to review current regulations and autopilot technologies. The FAA Transport Airplane Directorate initiated an effort under the ARAC Flight Guidance Harmonization Working Group to evaluate the status of current autopilot technologies, rules and guidance along with the harmonization of U.S. policy and guidance with the Joint Aviation Authorities. Later, the Performance-based operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee, which established the Autopilot Minimum Use Height (MUH) action team, evaluated autopilot minimum use altitudes and made recommendations to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety. The team was specifically tasked with developing recommendations to address progress in the area of PBN and the subsets of area navigation (RNAV) and required navigation performance (RNP) operations. The team's conclusions aligned with the previous groups' acknowledgement that 14 CFR 121.579, 125.329 and 135.93 were outdated and recommended new rulemaking to take advantage of advancements in modern aircraft technologies and the certified capabilities of autopilot systems to create a performance-based structure to aid in the implementation of NextGen flight operations.
The FAA proposes a complete rewrite of 14 CFR 121.579, 125.329 and 135.93. The language in each section of the proposed regulations would be identical except for an additional paragraph in § 135.93 exempting rotorcraft. The proposed rule would harmonize these three parts of 14 CFR because the rule would be based on the performance capabilities of the equipment being utilized, not the operating certificate held. Nothing in the proposed rule would prevent or adversely affect the continued safe operation of aircraft using legacy navigation systems.
The proposed rule would align the autopilot operational rules with the new autopilot certification standards contained in § 25.1329, updated and effective April 11, 2006. The proposed rule would also be proactive by allowing for future technological advances within the scope of the rule, thus facilitating the implementation of NextGen into the National Airspace System.
In effect, the proposed rule would accommodate future technological changes by setting safe minimum altitudes in each phase of flight that certified autopilots could operate to. Once a new piece of equipment or system is certified and the new limitations incorporated in the AFM, as required in §§ 21.5, 25.1501 and 25.1581, a certificate holder might then make use of the new capabilities when authorized through OpSpecs. This change would enable new autopilots to utilize both current and future navigational systems. The current rule only references ground-based instrument approach facilities and Instrument Landing Systems (ILS).
Sections 121.579(a), 125.329(a), and 135.93(a) of the proposed rule would define altitude references for the different phases of flight, unlike the current rule which defines all altitudes with reference to terrain. All altitudes referring to takeoff, initial climb and go around/missed approach would be defined as being above airport elevation. All altitudes referring to enroute flight would be defined as being above terrain elevation. All altitudes referring to approach would be defined as being above Touchdown Zone Elevation (TDZE), except if the altitude is in reference to a Decision Altitude/Height (DA(H)) or Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) in which case the altitude would be defined in relation to the DA(H) or MDA itself (
As a result, the proposed rule would allow operators to add the applicable altitudes or heights published in the AFM to the airport and TDZE published on the instrument approach plate. This also would provide a standard reference for all operators and manufacturers using and producing Flight Management Systems (FMS).
The proposed rule would be formatted to model the actual phases of flight: Takeoff through landing or go-around. Each paragraph in the proposed rule would have a base minimum autopilot use altitude for the intended phase of flight that all aircraft may utilize. In order to protect the use of all legacy systems, the proposed base altitudes would remain identical to the altitudes in the current rule. Lower minimum use altitudes would be based on certification of the autopilot system and limitations found in the AFM. The
The current rule defines the base minimum altitude at which all aircraft may engage the autopilot after takeoff as 500 ft. or double the autopilot altitude loss (as specified in the AFM) above the terrain, whichever is higher. The current rule also gives the Administrator the authority to use OpSpecs to authorize a lower minimum engagement altitude on takeoff, which must be specified in the AFM. This takeoff paragraph was added as an amendment to the original autopilot rule that applied only to enroute operations. Although the amendment provided a vehicle to allow lower autopilot minimum use altitudes through OpSpecs, it did not place the authority for the operations directly in the rule.
The proposed rule would retain the same minimum altitudes for all aircraft to protect legacy systems and would introduce the ability to use lower engagement altitude on takeoff/initial climb based upon the certified limits of the autopilot as specified in the AFM. The proposed rule would also give the Administrator the authority to specify an altitude above, but not below, that specified in the AFM.
As a result, the proposed rule would establish the AFM as a performance-based standard by which a certificate holder might be authorized for operations through its OpSpecs. Once an autopilot's capabilities and limitations are certified and reflected in the AFM, a certificate holder might request a change to its OpSpecs to authorize use of the new minimum use altitude specified in the AFM.
The enroute paragraph of the current rule specifies a minimum use altitude of 500 ft. above terrain, or an altitude that is no lower than twice the autopilot altitude loss specified in the AFM, whichever is higher, for all operations. The proposed rule would maintain the same base minimum use altitude as the current rule. The proposed rule would also grant the Administrator the authority to specify a higher altitude.
The base minimum use altitude for an approach for the proposed rule would remain the same as that of the current rule. No person may use an autopilot at an altitude lower than 50 ft. below the DA (H) or MDA of the instrument approach being flown. The current rule allows for exceptions to this altitude with the use of a coupled autopilot, instrument landing system (ILS), and in specified reported weather conditions. The proposed rule would maintain the limitation that no person may use an autopilot at an altitude lower than 50 ft. below the DA(H) or MDA of the approach being flown and provides weather criteria that would allow current aircraft to meet the same autopilot minimum use altitudes as today.
However, the proposed rule would enable properly equipped aircraft to use the autopilot with other certified navigation systems in certain specified weather conditions to attain the same minimum use altitudes currently allowed with the coupled ILS. These aircraft must be capable of flying a coupled approach with both vertical and lateral path references being provided to the autopilot for guidance. A typical vertical path reference is a flight path angle provided by the signal of an ILS, microwave landing system, GNSS landing system or a navigation flight path provided for RNAV operations by an onboard database. This change would allow a greater number of aircraft to safely use their autopilots to lower minimum use altitudes.
The remaining provisions in the approach paragraph would provide minimum use altitudes dependent on the type of autopilot certification found in the AFM. The potential lowest minimum use altitude allowed by the proposed rule would be 50 ft. above the elevation TDZE. The advantage of this provision, for example, is that it would allow operators to keep the autopilot engaged until over the runway during complex PBN approaches. This would enable a stable approach path in both Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) and Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). In IMC, it would alleviate the transition from the autopilot to instrument hand flying during a critical segment of the approach. This would reduce the possibility of disorientation and a destabilized approach. In VMC, the same stabilized approach could be maintained while flightcrews monitor aircraft performance and watch for potential traffic conflicts. Currently, pilots must perform these tasks while disconnecting the autopilot half way through a descending final turn and continuing the approach manually. Although not being utilized, current technology exists to allow aircraft autopilot systems to remain engaged below the current allowable altitude using multiple forms of navigation. Such technology will eventually become a requirement for the implementation of NextGen. The proposed rule would provide a regulatory vehicle to meet this vision.
The proposed rule would also provide guidance for executing a missed approach/go-around that the current rule lacks. This guidance is first presented in the approach paragraph, wherein an aircraft does not need to comply with the autopilot minimum use altitude of that paragraph provided it is executing a coupled missed approach/go-around. A new subparagraph is also included to provide guidance on when the autopilot could be engaged on the missed approach/go-around, if a manual missed approach/go-around is accomplished.
The last paragraph proposed in the new rule would provide guidance for landing. Current language authorizes the Administrator, through OpSpecs, to allow an aircraft to touchdown with the autopilot engaged using an approved autoland flight guidance system. This authorization relies upon an ILS to meet this requirement. The proposed rule would state that minimum use altitudes do not apply to autopilot operations when an approved and authorized landing system mode is being used for landing. The difference in the two rules is that the proposed rule would stand alone and would not limit approved landing systems to be ground based systems, as the current rule does. The proposed rule would also allow new performance based landing systems to be approved and implemented for autoland operations as they become available.
The current rule expressly excludes rotorcraft operations from the minimum altitudes for use of autopilots. The proposed rule would continue to exclude rotorcraft operations.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Public Law 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:
The rule would incorporate the capabilities of current autopilots and would allow operators to more readily utilize the capabilities of future autopilots, flight guidance systems, and GNSS guidance systems as they are developed. These new capabilities would enable and accelerate the benefits of NextGen technologies and procedures that depend upon flight guidance systems to enhance aviation safety in the NAS.
The proposed rule would specify autopilot minimum use altitudes for parts 121, 125 and 135 operators. The rule would be based on the capabilities of the aircraft and the minimum use altitudes or lack of minimum use altitudes published in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). The proposed rule would not affect the minimum use altitudes presently used by operators in the National Airspace System. Operators would have the option to operate as they currently do or pursue the proposed lower minimum use altitudes based on their aircraft certification. Operators with aircraft that are certified and wishing to immediately achieve the proposed lower minimum use altitudes might incur the cost of accelerated training. This accelerated training cost is a change in present value, but not in total cost, because this type of training would have occurred in the future. Additionally, operators would not incur certification costs for aircraft, avionics equipment, autopilot and flight management systems that have already been certificated. Also, by setting new minimum altitudes for each phase of flight that certified equipment might operate to, the proposed rule would give manufacturers more certainty that new products can be used as they are developed. The FAA recognizes some older airplanes are not certificated to utilize the lower proposed minimum use altitudes. The FAA believes these operators would not incur these costs because they would not seek to modify their aircraft in order to be certified for the lower minimum use altitudes. The FAA seeks public comments regarding these findings and requests that all comments be accompanied with detailed supporting data.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule would not qualify as a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional costs on operators that operate under parts 121, 125, or 135. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it would have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on international trade.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, 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 only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.
Air Carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation Safety, Charter Flights, Safety, Transportation.
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation Safety.
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation Safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 46105.
2. Revise § 121.579 to read as follows:
(a)
(1) Altitudes for takeoff/initial climb and go-around/missed approach are defined as above the airport elevation.
(2) Altitudes for enroute operations are defined as above terrain elevation.
(3) Altitudes for approach are defined as above the touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) unless the altitude is specifically in reference to DA(H) or MDA in which case the altitude is defined by reference to the DA(H) or MDA itself.
(4) Altitudes specified as above airport elevation, runway TDZE or terrain are considered to be above ground level (AGL).
(b)
No person may use an autopilot for takeoff or initial climb below the higher of 500 feet or an altitude that is no lower than twice the altitude loss specified in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), except as follows:
(1) At a minimum engagement altitude specified in the AFM, or
(2) At an altitude specified by the Administrator, whichever is greater.
(c)
No person may use an autopilot enroute, including climb and descent, below the following:
(1) 500 feet,
(2) At an altitude that is no lower than twice the altitude loss specified in the AFM for an autopilot malfunction in cruise conditions, or
(3) At an altitude specified by the Administrator, whichever is greater.
(d)
No person may use an autopilot at an altitude lower than 50 feet below the DA(H) or MDA for the instrument procedure being flown, except as follows:
(1) For autopilots with an AFM specified altitude loss for approach operations, the greater of:
(i) An altitude no lower than twice the specified altitude loss,
(ii) An altitude no lower than 50 feet higher than the altitude loss specified in the AFM when reported weather conditions are less than the basic VFR weather conditions in § 91.155 of this chapter, suitable visual references specified in § 91.175 of this chapter have been established on the instrument approach procedure, and the autopilot is coupled and receiving both lateral and vertical path references,
(iii) An altitude no lower than the higher of the altitude loss specified in the AFM or 50 feet above the TDZE when reported weather conditions are equal to or better than the basic VFR weather conditions in § 91.155 of this chapter, and the autopilot is coupled and receiving both lateral and vertical path references, or
(iv) An altitude specified by the Administrator.
(2) For autopilots with AFM specified approach altitude limitations, the greater of:
(i) The minimum use altitude specified for the coupled approach mode selected,
(ii) 50 feet, or
(iii) An altitude specified by Administrator.
(3) For autopilots with an AFM specified negligible or zero altitude loss for an autopilot approach mode malfunction, the greater of:
(i) 50 feet, or
(ii) An altitude specified by Administrator.
(4) If executing an autopilot coupled go-around or missed approach, using a certificated and functioning autopilot in accordance with paragraph (e) in this section.
(e)
No person may engage an autopilot during a go-around or missed approach below the minimum engagement altitude specified for takeoff and initial climb in paragraph (b) in this section. An autopilot minimum use altitude does not apply to a go-around/missed approach initiated with an engaged autopilot. Performing a go-around or missed approach with an engaged autopilot must not adversely affect safe obstacle clearance.
(f)
Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this section, autopilot minimum use altitudes do not apply to autopilot operations when an approved automatic landing system mode is being used for landing. Automatic landing systems must be authorized in an operations specification issued to the operator.
3. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.
4. Revise § 125.329 to read as follows:
(a)
(1) Altitudes for takeoff/initial climb and go-around/missed approach are defined as above the airport elevation.
(2) Altitudes for enroute operations are defined as above terrain elevation.
(3) Altitudes for approach are defined as above the touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) unless the altitude is specifically in reference to DA(H) or MDA in which case the altitude is defined by reference to the DA(H) or MDA itself.
(4) Altitudes specified as above airport elevation, runway TDZE or terrain are considered to be above ground level (AGL).
(b)
No person may use an autopilot for takeoff or initial climb below the higher of 500 feet or an altitude that is no lower than twice the altitude loss specified in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), except as follows:
(1) At a minimum engagement altitude specified in the AFM, or
(2) At an altitude specified by the Administrator, whichever is greater.
(c)
No person may use an autopilot enroute, including climb and descent, below the following:
(1) 500 feet,
(2) At an altitude that is no lower than twice the altitude loss specified in the AFM for an autopilot malfunction in cruise conditions, or
(3) At an altitude specified by the Administrator, whichever is greater.
(d)
No person may use an autopilot at an altitude lower than 50 feet below the DA(H) or MDA for the instrument procedure being flown, except as follows:
(1) For autopilots with an AFM specified altitude loss for approach operations, the greater of:
(i) An altitude no lower than twice the specified altitude loss,
(ii) An altitude no lower than 50 feet higher than the altitude loss specified in the AFM when reported weather conditions are less than the basic VFR weather conditions in§ 91.155 of this chapter, suitable visual references specified in § 91.175 of this chapter have been established on the instrument approach procedure, and the autopilot is coupled and receiving both lateral and vertical path references,
(iii) An altitude no lower than the higher of the altitude loss specified in the AFM or 50 feet above the TDZE when reported weather conditions are equal to or better than the basic VFR weather conditions in § 91.155 of this chapter, and the autopilot is coupled and receiving both lateral and vertical path references, or
(iv) An altitude specified by the Administrator.
(2) For autopilots with AFM specified approach altitude limitations, the greater of:
(i) The minimum use altitude specified for the coupled approach mode selected,
(ii) 50 feet, or
(iii) An altitude specified by Administrator.
(3) For autopilots with an AFM specified negligible or zero altitude loss for an autopilot approach mode malfunction, the greater of:
(i) 50 feet, or
(ii) An altitude specified by Administrator.
(4) If executing an autopilot coupled go-around or missed approach, using a certificated and functioning autopilot in accordance with paragraph (e) in this section.
(e)
No person may engage an autopilot during a go-around or missed approach below the minimum engagement altitude specified for takeoff and initial
(f)
Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this section, autopilot minimum use altitudes do not apply to autopilot operations when an approved automatic landing system mode is being used for landing. Automatic landing systems must be authorized in an operations specification issued to the operator.
5. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.
6. Revise § 135.93 to read as follows:
(a)
(1) Altitudes for takeoff/initial climb and go-around/missed approach are defined as above the airport elevation.
(2) Altitudes for enroute operations are defined as above terrain elevation.
(3) Altitudes for approach are defined as above the touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) unless the altitude is specifically in reference to DA(H) or MDA in which case the altitude is defined by reference to the DA(H) or MDA itself.
(4) Altitudes specified as above airport elevation, runway TDZE or terrain are considered to be above ground level (AGL).
(b)
No person may use an autopilot for takeoff or initial climb below the higher of 500 feet or an altitude that is no lower than twice the altitude loss specified in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), except as follows:
(1) At a minimum engagement altitude specified in the AFM, or
(2) At an altitude specified by the Administrator, whichever is greater.
(c)
No person may use an autopilot enroute, including climb and descent, below the following:
(1) 500 feet,
(2) At an altitude that is no lower than twice the altitude loss specified in the AFM for an autopilot malfunction in cruise conditions, or
(3) At an altitude specified by the Administrator, whichever is greater.
(d)
No person may use an autopilot at an altitude lower than 50 feet below the DA(H) or MDA for the instrument procedure being flown, except as follows:
(1) For autopilots with an AFM specified altitude loss for approach operations, the greater of:
(i) An altitude no lower than twice the specified altitude loss,
(ii) An altitude no lower than 50 feet higher than the altitude loss specified in the AFM when reported weather conditions are less than the basic VFR weather conditions in§ 91.155 of this chapter, suitable visual references specified in § 91.175 of this chapter have been established on the instrument approach procedure, and the autopilot is coupled and receiving both lateral and vertical path references,
(iii) An altitude no lower than the higher of the altitude loss specified in the AFM or 50 feet above the TDZE when reported weather conditions are equal to or better than the basic VFR weather conditions in § 91.155 of this chapter, and the autopilot is coupled and receiving both lateral and vertical path references, or
(iv) An altitude specified by the Administrator.
(2) For autopilots with AFM specified approach altitude limitations, the greater of:
(i) The minimum use altitude specified for the coupled approach mode selected,
(ii) 50 feet, or
(iii) An altitude specified by Administrator.
(3) For autopilots with an AFM specified negligible or zero altitude loss for an autopilot approach mode malfunction, the greater of:
(i) 50 feet, or
(ii) An altitude specified by Administrator.
(4) If executing an autopilot coupled go-around or missed approach, using a certificated and functioning autopilot in accordance with paragraph (e) in this section.
(e)
No person may engage an autopilot during a go-around or missed approach below the minimum engagement altitude specified for takeoff and initial climb in paragraph (b) in this section. An autopilot minimum use altitude does not apply to a go-around/missed approach initiated with an engaged autopilot. Performing a go-around or missed approach with an engaged autopilot must not adversely affect safe obstacle clearance.
(f)
Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this section, autopilot minimum use altitudes do not apply to autopilot operations when an approved automatic landing system mode is being used for landing. Automatic landing systems must be authorized in an operations specification issued to the operator.
(g) This section does not apply to operations conducted in rotorcraft.
Federal Trade Commission.
Request for public comments.
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) requests public comments on the overall costs and benefits of and the continuing need for its Guides for Advertising Allowances and Other Merchandising Payments and Services (“the Fred Meyer Guides” or ”the Guides”), as part of the agency's review of all its current regulations and guides.
Written comments will be accepted until January 29, 2013.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Neil W. Averitt (202) 326-2885, or Julie A. Goshorn (202) 326-3033, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Fred Meyer Guides are intended to help businesses comply with sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act (“the Act”).
The Commission promulgated the Fred Meyer Guides under sections 5 and 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. 45-46, in 1969. Industry guides such as these are administrative interpretations of the law. Therefore, they do not have the force and effect of law and are not independently enforceable. The Guides are intended to reflect and interpret the requirements that courts have imposed upon sellers, in actions brought by private parties as well as by the Government. The Guides were most recently reviewed and amended in 1990.
The Guides contain a total of fifteen sections. The first seven of these consist of definitions and explanations that spell out the general scope of the Robinson-Patman Act and of the Guides themselves. Section 1 describes the purpose of the Guides, and emphasizes that, while they are intended to be consistent with the case law, they do not themselves have the force of law. Section 2 spells out systematically the jurisdictional prerequisites that must be met before 2(d) or 2(e) of the Robinson-Patman Act will apply, including, for example, having a seller of products, engaged in interstate commerce, who either directly or through an intermediary, makes certain payments or provides certain services. Section 3 defines the term “seller” explaining that the term reaches any person making sales for resale, that it includes intermediaries in the distribution chain such as wholesalers and distributors, and includes sales of goods that must be processed before being resold. Section 4 defines the term “customer,” clarifying that the term includes indirect purchasers and the headquarters of group buyers, but not the individual stores in such groups. Section 5 defines “competing customers” to include all businesses that compete in the resale of the seller's products of like grade and quality at the same functional level of distribution (
The next three sections interpret the substantive requirements of the Robinson-Patman Act. Section 8 suggests that sellers should provide their promotional payments and services according to a pre-determined plan, and, if the plan is complex, that they would be well advised to put it in writing. Section 9 interprets the reference to “proportionately equal terms” and notes that no single way of proportionalizing is prescribed by law, but suggests that convenient and acceptable techniques for doing so would include providing benefits on the basis of the dollar volume or the unit quantity of the product purchased during a specified period. Section 10 explains that the seller should take reasonable steps to ensure that the benefits are useable in a practical sense by all competing customers, a principle that may require offering alternative forms of benefits for customers of different sizes or customers that use different sales channels.
The last five sections address a variety of administrative issues and affirmative defenses. Section 11 states that a seller may contract with intermediaries, such as wholesalers, to perform its obligations. Section 12 states that the seller should take “reasonable precautions” to ensure that customers expend the allowance solely for its intended purposes. Section 13 deals with the subject of customer liability, and notes that, although sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Robinson-Patman Act apply only to sellers, the Commission may proceed under section 5 of the FTC Act against customers who induce sellers to violate the Robinson-Patman Act. Section 14 affirms that a “meeting-competition” defense is available to charges under 2(d) and 2(e), provided that the seller acts in good faith to meet those competing offers. Section 15 notes that it is no defense to a charge that an allowance violates the Act that the payment or service could be justified through savings in the cost of manufacture, sales or delivery (
The Commission periodically reviews all of its rules and guides. These reviews seek information about the costs and benefits of the agency's rules and guides, and their regulatory and economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in identifying those rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. Therefore, the Commission solicits comments on, among other things, the economic impact of and the continuing need for the Fred Meyer Guides; possible developments in the case law that need to be reflected in the Guides; and the effect on the Guides of any technological, economic, or other industry changes.
The Commission solicits written public comments on the following questions:
(1) Is there a continuing need for the Fred Meyer Guides?
(2) Have there been changes in the case law that are not, but should be, reflected in the Guides?
(3) How, if at all, should the Guides be revised to account for new methods of commerce introduced as a result of the growth of the Internet since 1990? In particular, how should the Guides address: (a) Support for Internet or other electronic promotion in various forms, such as pay-per-click, display ads, targeted ads, mobile ads, or other formats; (b) manufacturer support for different pages within a retailer's Web site (
(4) To what extent, if any, should § 240.13(a) of the Guides be revised to reflect cases discussing the possibility that what appears to be a discrimination in promotional allowances may support
(5) What benefits and costs have the Guides had on businesses that grant promotional allowances and services?
(6) What benefits and costs have the Guides had for businesses who receive promotional allowances and services?
(7) What benefits and costs have the Guides had for ultimate consumers?
(8) What changes, if any, should be made to the Guides to increase their benefits to those who use them and to consumers? Are there terms in the statute or concepts in the case law that are not presently addressed in the Guides, and that might benefit from clarification? How would these changes affect the costs that the Guides impose on firms that conform to them?
(9) What changes, if any, should be made to the Guides to reduce the burdens or costs imposed on firms that conform to them? How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the Guides?
(10) Do the Guides overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations? If so, what changes in the Guides, if any, would be appropriate?
(11) In addition to the issues mentioned in Question (3) above, since the Guides were last amended, what, if any, developments in technology or economic conditions require modification to the Guides? What modifications are required?
(12) What effects, if any, do the Guides have on the costs, profitability, competitiveness and employment of small business entities?
(13) Are there foreign or international laws, regulations, or standards concerning the avoidance of discriminatory allowances and services that the Commission should consider as it reviews the Guides? If so, what are they? (a) Should the Guides be changed to harmonize with these foreign or international laws, regulations, or standards? Why or why not? (b) How would harmonization affect the costs and benefits of the Guides for consumers? (c) How would harmonization affect the costs and benefits of the Guides for businesses, particularly small businesses?
(14) Are there any other problems occurring in the provision of promotional allowances and services covered by the Guides that are not dealt with in the Guides? If so, what mechanisms should be explored to address such problems?
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 29, 2013. Write “Fred Meyer Guides Review” on the comment.
Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comments do not include any sensitive personal information, such as a Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information.
In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is * * * privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you must follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comments to be withheld from the public record. Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comment online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Fred Meyer Guides Review” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex B), 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
By direction of the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Publication of list of rules scheduled for review.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing a list of rules to be reviewed pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The list is published to provide the public with notice that these rules are
Comments should be submitted by January 3, 2013.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. S7-12-12. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us 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 (
Anne Sullivan, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-5019.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), codified at 5 U.S.C. 600-611, requires an agency to review its rules that have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within ten years of the publication of such rules as final rules. 5 U.S.C. 610(a). The purpose of the review is “to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded * * * to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 610(a). The RFA sets forth specific considerations that must be addressed in the review of each rule:
• The continued need for the rule;
• The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public;
• The complexity of the rule;
• The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with state and local governmental rules; and
• 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. 5 U.S.C. 610(c).
The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy, reviews all final rules that it published for notice and comment to assess not only their continued compliance with the RFA, but also to assess generally their continued utility. The list below is therefore broader than that required by the RFA, and may include rules that do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Where the Commission has previously made a determination of a rule's impact on small businesses, the determination is noted on the list.
The Commission particularly solicits public comment on whether the rules listed below affect small businesses in new or different ways than when they were first adopted. The rules and forms listed below are scheduled for review by staff of the Commission during the next twelve months. The list includes rules from 2001. When the Commission implemented the Act in 1980, it stated that it “intend[ed] to conduct a broader review [than that required by the RFA], with a view to identifying those rules in need of modification or even rescission.” Securities Act Release No. 6302 (Mar. 20, 1981), 46 FR 19251 (Mar. 30, 1981).
15 U.S.C. 80a-6(c), 80a-10(e), 80a-29(e), 80a-30, 80a-37(a).
Rule 10e-1 under the Act suspends temporarily the board composition requirements of the Act and rules thereunder, if a Fund fails to meet those requirements by reason of the death, disqualification, or bona fide resignation of a director. Rule 10e-1 suspends the board composition requirements for 90 days if the board can fill the director vacancy, or 150 days if a shareholder vote is required to fill the vacancy.
Rule 32a-4 under the Act exempts Funds from the Act's requirement that shareholders vote on the selection of the Fund's independent public accountant if the Fund (i) establishes an audit committee composed solely of independent directors that oversees the fund's accounting and auditing processes; (ii) adopts an audit committee charter setting forth the committee's structure, duties, powers, and methods of operation, or sets out similar provisions in the Fund's charter or bylaws; and (iii) maintains a copy of such audit committee charter.
15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-33, 80a-34, and 80a-37.
15 U.S.C. 77b, 15 U.S.C. 77f, 15 U.S.C. 77g, 15 U.S.C. 77h, 15 U.S.C. 77j, 15 U.S.C. 77s, and 15 U.S.C. 77z-3.
15 U.S.C. 78a
15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq., 80a-34(d), 80a-37, 80a-39, unless otherwise noted.
15 U.S.C. 78a
15 U.S.C. 78a
15 U.S.C. 78a
15 U.S.C. 77b, 15 U.S.C. 77g, 15 U.S.C. 77j, 15 U.S.C. 77s, and 15 U.S.C. 77z-3.
By the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is proposing to revoke the standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams. We are taking this action primarily in response to a citizen petition submitted by the International Jelly and Preserve Association (IJPA). We are taking this action because we tentatively conclude that these standards are both obsolete and unnecessary in light of our regulations for foods named by use of a nutrient content claim and a standardized term. We also tentatively conclude that this action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.
Submit electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by March 4, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-1997-P-0007 (formerly Docket No. 1997P-0142), by any of the following methods.
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
•
•
Daniel Reese, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.
For more than 50 years, FDA has maintained standards of identity for
The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990 amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to provide for a number of fundamental changes in food labeling, leading to a new regulatory framework for the naming of foods that do not fully comply with the relevant standards of identity. In response to NLEA, FDA established in part 101 (21 CFR part 101), among other things, definitions for specific nutrient content claims using terms such as “free,” “low,” “light” or “lite,” and “less,” and provided for their use in food labeling (58 FR 2302; January 6, 1993). FDA also prescribed at the same time in § 130.10 (21 CFR 130.10) a general definition and standard of identity for foods named by a nutrient content claim defined in part 101, such as “low calorie” or “sugar free,” in conjunction with a traditional standardized food term (58 FR 2431; January 6, 1993). A nutrient content claim applied to the standardized food “grape jelly,” for example, could be “low calorie grape jelly.” Section 130.10(d)(1) allows the addition of safe and suitable ingredients to a food named by use of a nutrient content claim and a standardized term when these ingredients are used to, among other things, add sweetness to ensure that the modified food is not inferior in performance characteristic to the standardized food even if such ingredients are not specifically provided for by the relevant food standard. Thus, under certain circumstances, § 130.10 permits manufacturers to use safe and suitable artificial sweeteners (e.g., aspartame) that are not expressly listed in §§ 150.141 and 150.161 in the manufacture of jelly, fruit preserves, and jams (collectively, “fruit spreads”). Therefore, fruit spread products named with a nutrient content claim (for example, “low calorie grape jelly”) may contain newer artificial sweeteners to add sweetness to fruit spread products so that they are not inferior in their sweetness compared to their standardized counterparts (for example, “grape jelly”). The provisions of § 130.10 do not require these products to declare the presence of such non-nutritive sweeteners within the name of these foods. FDA took this action to assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices by providing for a modified version of a traditional standardized food to achieve a nutrition goal (e.g., reduction in sugar consumption or calories) and that has a descriptive name that is meaningful to consumers. The provisions of § 130.10 do not, however, permit the use of nutrient content claims as part of the name of a food for foods governed by standards of identity that established the phrase “artificially sweetened” as part of the standard of identity. Accordingly, jelly, preserves, and jams, that use saccharin, sodium saccharin, calcium saccharin, or any combination thereof as non-nutritive sweeteners must still include the term “artificially sweetened” in their names and are not permitted to bear a nutrient content claim as part of the name; however, similar products that use newer non-nutritive sweeteners are governed by § 130.10 and must not include the term “artificially sweetened” in their names.
IJPA is a national trade association representing the manufacturers of jelly, preserves, jams, and nonstandardized fruit spreads, and suppliers of goods and services to the industry, including ingredient suppliers of fruit, sweeteners, and pectin. IJPA submitted a citizen petition dated March 31, 1997 (now Docket No. FDA-1997-P-0007), requesting the revocation of the standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams. IJPA submitted its petition in response to FDA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking announcing that FDA was planning to review its food standards regulations (60 FR 67492; December 29, 1995). In that document, we sought comments on, inter alia, the benefits or lack of benefits of such regulations in facilitating domestic and international commerce, the value of these regulations to consumers, and alternative means of accomplishing the statutory objective of food standards (i.e., to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers in the manufacture and sale of food products covered by the standard of identity regulations).
IJPA asserts in its citizen petition that the standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly, jams, and preserves are outdated. According to IJPA, the standards have not been updated to take into account new non-nutritive sweeteners that have been approved by FDA since 1959. The petition maintains that the general standard in § 130.10 provides fruit spread manufacturers with sufficient flexibility to use newer, intense non-nutritive sweeteners in lieu of traditional nutritive sweeteners, and it would be appropriate to rely on that general standard rather than seek piecemeal amendments to the standards of identity to reflect the development of any new sweeteners. IJPA stated that by using the general standard in § 130.10, manufacturers can create products with nutrient content claims for reductions in calories or sugar content that are established in FDA regulations. According to IJPA, nutrient content terms (e.g., “low calorie”) also better communicate to the consumer the nutritional benefit of the use of non-nutritive sweeteners than does the term “artificially sweetened,” which is required to appear in the labels of products manufactured in conformity with §§ 150.141 and 150.161. Therefore, IJPA concluded in its petition that the standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams are both obsolete and unnecessary, and requested that we revoke these standards. Finally, IJPA stated that as of the date of submission of its citizen petition, there were few products being manufactured under these two standards of identity and that some manufacturers are already using the general standard in § 130.10 to formulate products that have reduced sugar and caloric content. IJPA stated that if these standards are revoked, any products that are currently manufactured in conformity with the standards could remain on the market by operation of § 130.10.
We have reviewed IJPA's petition. We find merit in IJPA's argument that revoking the artificially sweetened standards of identity would allow manufacturers to more accurately and consistently describe the attributes of the fruit spreads that currently conform to those standards. We therefore tentatively conclude that revoking the standards would promote honesty and
Enactment of NLEA and the development of newer artificial sweeteners, thus, renders the standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams in §§ 150.141 and 150.161 obsolete. They no longer serve their intended purpose of ensuring honesty and fair dealing while allowing for the use of artificial sweeteners in standardized fruit jelly and standardized fruit preserves and jams as firms may now use certain artificial sweeteners under § 130.10. The standards for artificially sweetened jelly and artificially sweetened preserves and jams predate the nutrient content claim provisions of § 130.10. Removal of the artificially sweetened standards of identity would mean that products that are currently subject to the requirements of §§ 150.141 and 150.161 would instead be subject to the requirements of § 130.10, the general definition and standard of identity for foods named by a nutrient content claim defined in part 101. Thus, these products would be named by use of a nutrient content claim (e.g., “reduced calorie” or “no sugar added”) along with a standardized term (“jelly” or “jam”), in accordance with § 130.10. Revoking §§ 150.141 and 150.161 also would promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers by requiring manufacturers to more accurately and consistently describe the attributes of the food (e.g., less sugar or reduced calories); would allow any safe and suitable non-nutritive sweetener to be used in standardized jams, jellies, and preserves; and would allow better comparison to other jams, jellies, and preserves currently modified under the provisions of § 130.10. For example, under current requirements, a jelly that is sweetened with saccharin must be called “artificially sweetened jelly” (in accordance with § 150.141) whereas a similar jelly sweetened with aspartame may be named as “reduced sugar jelly” (in accordance with § 130.10 and provided it meets the requirements for the nutrient content claim “reduced sugar” in § 101.60.(c)(5)) to distinguish it from the standardized food (jelly in § 150.140). Revoking the standards would provide consistency and uniformity among such products because all fruit spreads sweetened with non-nutritive sweeteners would be subject to the same requirements. This proposed rule also is consistent with FDA's proposed general principles for modernizing food standards (70 FR 29214; May 20, 2005). In addition, this proposal is consistent with Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and Executive Order 13653 of January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3821), regarding improving Agency regulations, regulatory planning, and regulatory review.
Considering the information in this document, we are proposing to revoke the standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams in §§ 150.141 and 150.161, respectively. We request comments on our tentative conclusion that these two standards of identity are obsolete and unnecessary, and that revoking them would promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.
We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. We tentatively conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive Orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because we have tentatively concluded, as set forth in this document, that this rule would not generate significant compliance costs, we expect that this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We request comment on the impact of this rule on small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $139 million, using the most current (2011) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. We do not expect this proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.
We are proposing to revoke the standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams because we have tentatively concluded that these standards are obsolete and unnecessary. The current standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly (§ 150.141) and artificially sweetened preserves and jams (§ 150.161) provide that they may be manufactured only with specific, non-nutritive artificial sweeteners: saccharin, sodium saccharin, calcium saccharin, or any combination thereof. These standards of identity, therefore, do not permit the use of newer, safe and suitable artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame.
The development of newer artificial sweeteners and the enactment of the NLEA have made the current standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams obsolete. The NLEA and § 130.10 permit the modification of a traditional standardized food to achieve a nutrition goal, such as a reduction in calories. Section 130.10(d)(1) allows the addition of safe and suitable ingredients to a food named by use of a nutrient content claim and a standardized term when these ingredients are used to, among other things, add sweetness to ensure that the modified food is not inferior in performance characteristic to the standardized food, even if such ingredients are not specifically provided for by the relevant food standard. Standardized jelly and standardized preserves and jams products modified under § 130.10 must use nutrient content claims to communicate the
In assessing our regulatory options, we considered the option of taking no action and the option of taking the action proposed by this rule. We have tentatively concluded that the proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, would not be an economically significant regulatory action. We are not quantitatively estimating the benefits and costs of the regulatory alternatives to the proposed rule. In the following paragraphs, we qualitatively compare the costs and benefits of the regulatory options to the costs and benefits of the proposed rule.
By convention, we treat the option of taking no new regulatory action as the baseline for determining the costs and benefits of the other options. Therefore, we associate neither costs nor benefits with this option. The consequences of taking no action are reflected in the costs and benefits associated with taking the action set forth in this proposed rule.
If the proposed rule is finalized as proposed, and we revoke §§ 150.141 and 150.161, products that are currently subject to the requirements of these standards of identity would no longer be required to use the phrase “artificially sweetened” as part of their product name. Furthermore, revoking §§ 150.141 and 150.161 would mean that these same products would be permitted to bear nutrient content claims along with a standardized term (e.g., “reduced calorie jelly” or “no sugar added jam”), in accordance with § 130.10.
The costs of this proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, would result from the need to relabel any existing jelly, preserves, and jams that conform with the standards in §§ 150.141 and 150.161. Any products currently manufactured in accordance with the standards in §§ 150.141 and 150.161 would have to be relabeled in order to comply with § 130.10 if this proposed rule is finalized as proposed. Our review of supermarket scanner data for the years 2001 through 2010, however, revealed that no such products are currently being sold. Sales for products manufactured in accordance with §§ 150.141 and 150.161 were last reported in 2002. A memorandum summarizing the results of this scanner data can be found in Reference 1. The data support our tentative conclusion that most manufacturers most likely have discontinued production of artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams, presumably because of a perception that the phrase “artificially sweetened” is unattractive to consumers. The data also support our tentative conclusion that it is unlikely that this proposed rule would generate significant compliance costs due to the need to relabel products. In fact, removal of the artificially sweetened standards of identity would allow manufacturers to re-introduce products covered under §§ 150.141 and 150.161 to be sold as products covered by § 130.10. That is, they would be named by use of a nutrient content claim in conjunction with a standardized term (e.g., “reduced calorie jelly” or “no sugar added jam”), in accordance with § 130.10. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that any relabeling compliance costs would be negligible.
We do not classify as anticipated costs of this proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, any expenses that firms might voluntarily incur if they choose to change their product formulas or manufacturing practices in response to the proposed revocation of the “artificially sweetened” standards of identity. Any such costs are not costs that would be required by this proposed regulatory change. Instead, these costs would result from voluntary business decisions made by manufacturers.
We tentatively conclude that the principal benefits that would result from the proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, derive from increased information and flexibility. Revoking the artificially sweetened standards of identity would provide producers of jelly, preserves, and jams with the flexibility to use saccharin, sodium saccharin, calcium saccharin, or any combination thereof, in their formulations without having to include the term “artificially sweetened” in their product names. Manufacturers could instead name their products in accordance with approved nutrient content claims, as provided for under § 130.10, thus providing consumers with additional information about the nutritional profile of affected products. Additionally, revoking §§ 150.141 and 150.161 would assist consumers in comparing products covered by the standards with other similar jelly, preserves, and jams manufactured in accordance with § 130.10.
Accordingly, while we do not quantify the costs and benefits of this proposed rule, we tentatively conclude that potential benefits will outweigh any potential costs associated with the rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because compliance costs, if any, generated by this proposed rule are expected to be negligible, we tentatively conclude that this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We request comment on this tentative conclusion. The following analysis, in conjunction with the discussion in this document, constitutes our initial regulatory flexibility analysis as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposed rule, if finalized, would revoke the standards of identity for artificially sweetened jelly, preserves, and jams. The revocation of these artificially sweetened standards of identity would provide small fruit spread firms with the flexibility to use the three non-nutritive sweeteners listed in §§ 150.141 and 150.161 and to name their products with FDA-defined nutrient content claims in accordance with § 130.10, as is currently done for fruit spread products manufactured with other non-nutritive sweeteners.
We do not classify as costs of this proposed rule any expenses that some small firms might voluntarily incur because they choose to change their product formulas or manufacturing practices in ways that would be permitted by the proposed rule, if finalized. As discussed in this document, any such costs would not be costs required by this proposal, if finalized. We request comments on the provisions of this proposed rule that might require small firms to change their current practices.
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. Section 4(a) of the Executive order requires Agencies to “construe * * * a Federal statute to preempt State law only where the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.”
Section 403A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343-1) is an express preemption provision. Section 403A(a) of the FD&C Act provides that “no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce—(1) any requirement for a food which is the subject of a standard of identity established under section 401 that is not identical to such standard of identity or that is not identical to the requirement of section 403(g).”
The express preemption provision of section 403A(a) of the FD&C Act does not preempt any State or local requirement respecting a statement in the labeling of food that provides for a warning concerning the safety of the food or component of the food (section 6(c)(2) of the NLEA, Public Law 101-535, 104 Stat. 2353, 2364 (1990)).
This proposed rule, if finalized, would impose requirements that fall within the scope of section 403A(a) of the FD&C Act.
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(a) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
We conclude that the provisions of this proposed rule are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because they do not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
The following source has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
1. Memorandum to the file, from Cristina McLaughlin, FDA, November 26, 2012.
Food grades and standards, Fruits.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and redelegated to the Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 150 be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 150 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348, 371, 379e.
2. Remove §§ 150.141 and 150.161.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that DSM Nutritional Products has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of benzoic acid as a feed acidifier in swine feed.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner's request for categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement by January 3, 2013.
Submit electronic comments to:
Isabel W. Pocurull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-453-6853, email:
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2273) has been filed by DSM Nutritional Products, 45 Waterview Blvd., Parsippany, NJ 07054. The petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 573
The petitioner has requested a categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under 21 CFR 25.32(r). Interested persons may submit a single copy of either electronic or written comments regarding this request for categorical exclusion to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) announces additional meetings for the Indian Oil Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee). The seventh through ninth meetings of the Committee will take place on January 15 and 16, March 5 and 6, and April 17 and 18, 2013, in Building 85 of the Denver Federal Center. The Committee membership includes representatives from Indian tribes, individual Indian mineral owner organizations, minerals industry representatives, and other Federal bureaus. The public will have the opportunity to comment between 3:45 p.m. and 4:45 p.m. Mountain Time on January 15, 2013; March 5, 2013; and April 17, 2013.
Tuesday and Wednesday, January 15 and 16, 2013; Tuesday and Wednesday, March 5 and 6, 2013; and Wednesday and Thursday, April 17 and 18, 2013. All meetings will run from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time for all dates.
ONRR will hold the meetings at the Denver Federal Center, 6th Ave and Kipling, Bldg. 85 Auditorium, Lakewood, CO 80225.
Mr. Karl Wunderlich, ONRR, at (303) 231-3663; or (303) 231-3744 via fax; or via email
ONRR formed the Committee on December 8, 2011, to develop specific recommendations regarding proposed revisions to the existing regulations for oil production from Indian leases, especially the major portion requirement. The Committee includes representatives of parties that the final rule will affect. It will act solely in an advisory capacity to ONRR and will neither exercise program management responsibility nor make decisions directly affecting the matters on which it provides advice.
Meetings are open to the public without advanced registration on a space-available basis. Minutes of this meeting will be available for public inspection and copying at our offices in Building 85 on the Denver Federal Center in Lakewood, Colorado, or are available at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware for the purpose of amending Regulation No. 1102, Appendix A to clarify the permitting requirements for owners of stationary generators. In the Final Rules section of this
Comments must be received in writing by January 3, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0619 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Cathleen Van Osten (215) 814-2746, or by email at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
NHTSA is proposing to restore the side marker lamp requirements, for vehicles that are over 80 inches wide, and also less than 30 feet in overall length, to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. These requirements were modified when the agency published a final rule reorganizing the standard on December 4, 2007.
Comments to this proposal must be received on or before January 3, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 30, 2005
Based on the comments received in response to the NPRM, NHTSA published a final rule on December 4, 2007,
On December 30, 2005, NHTSA published a NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 108 by reorganizing the regulatory text so that it provides a more straight-forward and logical presentation of the applicable regulatory requirements.
S7.4.1.1Inboard photometry. For each motor vehicle less than 30 feet in overall length and less than 2032 mm. in overall width, the minimum photometric intensity requirements for a side marker lamp may be met for all inboard test points at a distance of 15 feet from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and located midway between the front and rear side marker lamps.
On December 4, 2007 NHTSA adopted a final rule that amended FMVSS No. 108 based on the 2005 NPRM with modifications that furthered the objectives of the rewrite to make the requirements easier to find and understand. In the final rule NHTSA reiterated that the rewrite of the standard was administrative in nature and the requirements and obligations were not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified.
In the preamble to the final rule, the agency explained that the inboard photometry requirements for side marker lamps (contained in paragraph S7.4.13.2) were based on paragraph S5.1.1.8 of the standard prior to the rewrite which applied to vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length.
The agency did not cite within its analysis in the 2007 final rule the 1980 final rule that originally created the regulatory text as it applies to the inboard photometric requirements, with respect to vehicle size.
The 1980 final rule explained that a reduced photometric angle allowance is more appropriate for vehicles that are short (less than 30 feet) rather than for those that are narrow (less than 80 inches wide), noting that vehicles that are 30 feet or longer are required to have an intermediate side marker lamp located between the front and rear side makers. The 1980 final rule revised FMVSS No. 108 by deleting the words 80 inches in overall width and substituting 30 feet in overall length.
In July, separately, General Motors Company (GM) and Ford Motor Company, (Ford) met with NHTSA and stated their concern that the 1980 final rule may not have been properly considered in the 2007 rewrite of FMVSS No. 108. Both manufacturers further stated that their current dual-wheeled pickup truck side marker designs would require an extensive redesign in order to meet the requirements of the 2007 final rule when it becomes effective on December 1, 2012.
Based on a review of the 1980 final rule, NHTSA recognizes that paragraph S5.1.1.8 of the standard prior to the 2007 rewrite was intended to replace the SAE J592e, Table 1, footnote b, and not to supplement it. We are proposing to restore the photometric requirements for side marker lamps on vehicles less than 30 feet in length so that the requirements may be met for all inboard test points at a distance of 15 feet from the vehicle on a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and located midway between the front and rear side marker lamps, regardless of the width of the vehicle. We seek comment on our current analysis and the impacts that such a modification to the 2007 rule will have on manufacturers.
NHTSA believes that a common single-wheeled and dual-wheeled pickup truck side marker design expressed in Chrysler Corporation's original petition that led to the 1980 final rule still exists and is currently being utilized. Therefore, NHTSA will not pursue compliance actions against manufacturers that install side marker lamps on vehicles that are greater than 80 inches wide and shorter than 30 feet that fail to meet the 45 degree inboard photometric requirements of the 2007 final rule, provided that they meet the photometric requirements at a distance of 15 feet from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and located midway between the front and rear side marker lamps until this rulemaking is either terminated or adopted as a final rule. NHTSA will consider a manufacturer's certification to FMVSS No. 108 complete if the vehicle that is being certified meets the requirements for side marker lamps that were in place prior to the 2007 final rule.
Because this proposal only restores an existing requirement to the standard, the agency does not anticipate that there would be any costs associated with this rulemaking action. The agency expects some minor unquantifiable benefits to manufacturers due to their ability to continue to use side marker lamps of the same design on both narrow and wide vehicles under 30 feet in length. Accordingly, the agency did not conduct a separate economic analysis for this rulemaking.
The National Highway and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states that an FMVSS issued by NHTSA cannot become effective before 180 days after the standard is issued unless the agency makes a good cause finding that a different effective date is in the public interest. The agency has tentatively concluded that it is in the public interest for this proposed rule to become effective as soon as possible after the final rule is issued, should the agency decide to issue a rule, because such an effective date would allow regulated parties to avoid unnecessarily modifying the design of their side marker lamps. The agency proposes an effective date of 30 days after the date of issuance of the final rule should one be issued.
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.
Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
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 Office of Management and Budget (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 submit your comments by mail and 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, at the address given above under
In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above.
We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document (e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
We have reviewed this proposal for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has considered the effects of the proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not have a
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” (49 U.S.C. 30103(e)). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's proposed rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,”
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995).
Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
This proposed rule is not anticipated to result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposed rule does not contain any collection of information requirements requiring review under the PRA.
Executive Order 13045
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as “performance-based or design-specific technical specification and related management systems practices.” They pertain to “products and processes, such as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or material.”
Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
This proposal would not adopt or reference any new industry or consensus standards that were not already present in FMVSS No. 108.
Executive Order 13211
This proposal amends the photometry requirements for side marker lamps on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length that were changed during the administrative rewrite of the standard. Therefore, this proposed rule will not have any adverse energy effects. Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking action is not designated as a significant energy action.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Executive Order 12866 requires 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 isn't 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 proposal.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 organization, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as set forth below.
1. The authority citation for Part 571 is revised to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
2. Section 571.108 is amended by revising paragraph S7.4.13.2 to read as follows:
S7.4.13.2Inboard photometry. For each motor vehicle less than 30 feet in overall length, the minimum photometric intensity requirements for a side marker lamp may be met for all inboard test points at a distance of 15 feet from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and located midway between the front and rear side marker lamps.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of 90-day petition finding.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list
The finding announced in this document was made on December 4, 2012.
This finding is also available on the Internet at
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Office (see
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information for a listable entity was presented, we are required to promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently summarize in a 12-month finding.
On July 11, 2011, we received a petition dated July 7, 2011, from Richard C. Malone, on behalf of the Mountgrove Property Owners Association (petitioner), requesting that the single existing grove of
The petition discusses the origin and taxonomy of the sphinx date palm, and provides details of its life history. The petitioner mentions threats to the entity, and provides brief examples of potential population declines. The petition also discusses the petitioners' views on the advantages of protection for the sphinx date palm for research, education, propagation, as well as the economic advantages of the grove's production of high-quality fruit. The petition includes citations for various references and resources used to support the statements in the petition.
The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition. Below, we address the petitioner's request to list
All information in this section is from the petition. The Service has no information in its files on the sphinx date palm beyond that presented in the petition.
The grove in Phoenix consists of 450 mature trees and is the only known stand (contiguous area occupied by trees of similar type) of sphinx date palm. The grove is located in the Mountgrove district, south of Lafayette Boulevard, north of the Arizona canal, bordered by 46th Place on the west and 47th place on the east in the Arcadia area of central Phoenix. There are a few additional individual palms in the Phoenix Metro and Yuma areas of Arizona, and two sphinx date palms are reported to exist in California.
The petitioner does not provide descriptive information specific to the sphinx cultivar. They do provide information for the date palm (
The sphinx date palm has a lifespan of 100 to 130 years. Reproduction in the cultivar is vegetative (asexual; only one plant is involved and the offspring is genetically identical to its parent). Propagation is accomplished by removing offshoots (lateral shoot from the main stem of the plant) from mature palms. These offshoots must contain their own root ball (main mass of roots at the base of a plant). Propagation in this slow-growing cultivar is a long process, spanning 3 generations of 8 years each. Approximately 25 years were required to propagate the 450 offshoots needed to plant the grove. Pollination, and thus fruit production, is fully dependent on human intervention as male palms are not sufficiently numerous or near to date-bearing (female) palms for pollination to occur by natural means.
It is believed that Southwest Asia is the native region of the sphinx date palm's parent taxon, the date palm; however, its origin is not known with certainty. The sphinx date palm was
The petition consistently refers to the sphinx date palm as a cultivar of
There have been no previous Federal actions for this entity.
Upon receipt of a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species, we are to consider whether such petition “clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved” (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(i)). Under the Act, a species is defined as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532).
The sphinx date palm, like many vascular plants, is of hybrid origin. We acknowledge that hybridization is an important mechanism of plant speciation, as hybrids can display new phenotypes and promote adaptive evolution. We also acknowledge that it is conceivable that over time, the sphinx date palm could become sufficiently reproductively isolated to accrue substantial genetic distinction from its parent species to become a species itself. At this time, however, Phoenix's grove of sphinx date palms is a collection of individuals which does not represent a cohesive population entity with an evolutionary lineage separate from its parent species. In modern taxonomic practice, entities such as the sphinx date palm hybrid do not constitute a species.
The sphinx date palm is a cultivar. Cultivars are not eligible for protection under the Act. Speaking to this distinction, there has been much litigation on the subject of the intent of the relative ambiguity of the term “species” in the Act. In
The Act defines a species as including “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature” (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). The Service considers plant varieties and subspecies to be essentially identical (“Determination that 11 Plant Taxa are Endangered Species and 2 Plant Taxa are Threatened Species”, 43 FR 17910). Cultivar is a taxonomic level below that of subspecies and variety, and, therefore, cultivars are not listable entities as defined in the Act.
We conclude that the sphinx date palm is not a listable entity as defined under the Act. Therefore, after a review of the guiding regulations, we conclude that the petitioned entity does not constitute a “listable entity” and cannot be listed under the Act.
The District Court in the District of Oregon in their determination for
We conclude that the sphinx date palm is not a valid taxonomic entity and does not meet the definition of a species or a subspecies under the Act. Therefore, after a review of the guiding regulations and litigated precedents, we conclude that the petitioned entity does not constitute a “listable entity” and cannot be listed under the Act.
In summary, the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing the Sphinx date palm as endangered is warranted, because the entity as petitioned is not listable under the Act.
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Southwest Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the prairie gray fox (
We also evaluated whether the petition presents substantial information to indicate whether or not the Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana qualifies as a DPS that may be warranted for listing. Based on our review, we conclude that the petition does not provide substantial information indicating that population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana is a listable entity under the Act. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana may be a listable entity, we did not evaluate whether or not the information contained in the petition regarding threats to that population was substantial. We are not initiating a status review in response to this petition for Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Mearn's eastern cottontail or its habitat at any time.
The finding announced in this document was made on December 4, 2012.
We request that we receive information on or before February 4, 2013. The deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit information on the prairie gray fox and the plains spotted skunk, by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all information we receive on
This finding is available on the Internet at
Richard Nelson, Field Supervisor, Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Service Field Office, 1511 4th Ave., Moline, IL 61265; by telephone at 309-757-5800; or by facsimile at 309-757-5804. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
Amy Salveter, Field Supervisor, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A, Columbia, MO 65203; by telephone at 573-234-2132; or by facsimile at 573-234-2181. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly initiate review of the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on the prairie gray fox and the plains spotted skunk from governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
(3) Information regarding overharvest and disease as potential ongoing threats to the plains spotted skunk and prairie gray fox.
(4) Information regarding the impacts of pesticides on food availability for the plains spotted skunk.
(5) Information regarding the impacts of predation by coyotes and bobcats on the prairie gray fox.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing the prairie gray fox or the plains spotted skunk is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range currently occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species”; and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if one or both of the species are proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly initiate a species status review, which we subsequently summarize in our 12-month finding.
On July 18, 2011, we received a petition from Mr. David Wade and Dr. Thomas Alton, requesting that five or six entities of grassland thicket species or subspecies be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). However, while reviewing the petition, we determined that the petition did not clearly state which species were included in the petition. Therefore, in a September 2, 2011, letter to the petitioners, we provided the petitioners with an opportunity to revise the petition to clearly identify the petitioned entities, which the petitioners accepted in a September 12, 2011, response to our letter. On January 23, 2012, we received a revised petition from Mr. David Wade and Dr. Thomas Alton, requesting that the prairie gray fox (
To date, no Federal actions have been taken with regard to the prairie gray fox, the plains spotted skunk, or the Mearn's eastern cottontail.
The plains spotted skunk is one of three recognized subspecies of the eastern spotted skunk (
Both the plains spotted skunk and striped skunk (
Habitat associations of this subspecies are likely influenced by whether it is using a natural or human-dominated landscape. The subspecies lives in a wide range of habitats including forests, prairies, brushy areas, farmyards, and cultivated land (Crabb 1948, pp. 212-215; Edmonds 1974, p. 12; Kinlaw 1995, p. 4; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327). Regardless of habitat type used, the plains spotted skunk requires extensive vegetative cover. Brushy borders along fields, fence rows, farm buildings, wood piles, heavily vegetated gullies, leaf litter, or downed logs may provide the required extensive cover, which primarily provides protection from predators (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327; Lesmeister 2008, pp. 1517-1518). Nowak (1999, p. 734) notes that spotted skunks avoid dense forests; however, plains spotted skunks are more likely to occur where the landscape is composed of a high proportion of forest cover (Hackett 2008, pp. 52-54), and they use oak-hickory forests more than old fields or glades (McCullough 1983, pp. 40-43). Within forest habitats studied by McCullough (1983, p. 41) and Lesmeister (2007, p. 21), skunks used young, dense forest stands or stands with downed logs and slash more often than mature stands with open understories and clean forest floors. Spotted skunks also require an early successional (process by which ecological communities undergo changes following disturbance) component to their habitat to provide cover and denning areas (Lesmeister 2007, p. 56; Lesmeister
Dens can be located above ground or below ground. In natural landscapes, plains spotted skunks den in grassy banks and crevices or cavities under rock piles, hollow logs, and stumps (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327). In landscapes dominated by humans, they den in shelterbelts (row of trees planted to provide shelter from wind), fencerows, farm buildings, haystacks, woodpiles, or corn cribs (Crabb 1948, pp. 214-215; Hazard 1982, p. 144; Jones
During most of the year, individual plains spotted skunks remain in an area of approximately 40 hectares (ha) (98.8 acres (ac)), but the home range can vary based on habitat quality and food availability (Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327). The home range can vary seasonally as well; in spring, the range of males can expand to as much as 1,040 ha (2,569.9 ac) (Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 327). In Missouri, home ranges varied from 55 to 4,359 ha (135.9 to 10,771.3 ac) (McCullough 1983, p. 34). Lesmeister
The plains spotted skunk is omnivorous, but is primarily an insectivore and feeds on insects during all seasons of the year (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4). The proportion of different types of food items varies seasonally. Arthropods are the major dietary component during summer and autumn, with grasshoppers, crickets, ground beetles, and scarab beetles being the preferred food (Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 328). In the winter, small mammals, including eastern cottontail (
The plains spotted skunk currently (and historically) occurs between the Mississippi River and the Continental Divide from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico (Kinlaw 1995, p. 3). Historical records indicate that the plains spotted skunk was broadly distributed across its range through the early to mid-1900s and was one of the most common mesocarnivores (a carnivore whose diet consists of 50 to 70 percent meat) where suitable habitat occurred (Crabb 1948, p. 203; Choate
More contemporary records consistently show that the plains spotted skunk underwent declines in the mid- to late 1900s (Choate
The subspecies likely still occupies the same habitat types and occurs in all the States within its historical range (Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming), but in lower abundance (Choate
Gray fox (
The following characteristics describe the gray fox species in general, as they are similar to the characteristics of the prairie gray fox subspecies. The gray fox has a distinguishable appearance with gray fur on its upper body; reddish fur on its neck, the sides of the belly, and inner legs; and white on the rest of its underbody. The guard hairs (long, course hairs that protect soft underfur) are banded with white, gray, and black, which gives the fox's fur a grizzled appearance. It has a black tipped tail and a coarse dorsal mane of black-tipped hairs at the base of its tail (Chapman and Feldhammer 1982, p. 476; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 1; Hall 1981, p. 942; Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, p. 270). Gray fox are also distinguished from other canids by their widely separated temporal ridges that come together posteriorly in a U-shaped form (Chapman and Feldhammer 1982, p. 476; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 1; Hall 1981, p. 942; Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, p. 270). Gray fox are smaller than the red fox
Gray fox are generally associated with wooded habitats (Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p. 226; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 3; Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, p. 270). Gray fox use oak-hickory forests almost exclusively in southern Missouri, and are frequently found in dense stands of young trees during the day (Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, pp. 226-227). This study noted, however, that forest habitat was the most abundant habitat type in their study area and the importance of wooded habitat is dependent on its availability, and will be used disproportionately to its abundance when wooded habitat is scarce (Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p. 226). Gray fox use woody cover in deciduous or pine forest, but they also use edge habitat and early old-fields (open habitats that are transitioning from field to forest and are dominated by forbs, grass, and shrubs and small trees) (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 3). The gray fox tends to select against agricultural areas (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 3). Cooper (2008, p. 24) found a greater relative abundance of gray fox in Illinois, where there was a greater dispersion of grassland patches into forested areas, and lower densities in areas with larger patches of agricultural fields. A notable characteristic of the gray fox is their ability to climb trees; gray fox are capable of climbing a tree trunk using their claws to grasp and pull themselves up or bounding from branch to branch (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 5; Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, p. 270). This behavior is used during foraging, predator avoidance, or resting (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 5).
Gray fox dens are usually located in wooded areas and include underground burrows, cavities in trees or logs, wood-piles, and rock outcrops or cavities under rocks (Jones
The home range of the gray fox varies depending on the season and geographic location (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4). Males in southern Illinois were found to have a home range of 136 ha (336.1 ac), and females a home range of 107 ha (264.4 ac) (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4). A study by Haroldson and Fritzel (1984, p. 225) conducted in a Missouri oak-hickory forest indicated that nightly range use by gray fox was a fraction of the total monthly range. They also found composite (multiple month) home ranges (average 676 (+/−) 357 ha (1,670 (+/−) 882 ac)) are much larger than the individual month home ranges (average 299 (±) 155 ha (738 (±) 383 ac)) (Haroldson and Fritzel 1984, p. 223). Haroldson and Fritzel (1984, p. 226) also indicated that gray fox home ranges vary among populations. Gray fox are more active at night, with activity at sunrise sharply decreasing and increasing again at sunset (Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p. 224).
The gray fox is primarily an opportunistic carnivore, with mammals composing most of its diet in the Midwest (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4). According to Chapman and Feldhammer (1982, p. 480), the gray fox's diet depends highly on what is available. Although rabbits have been found to be one of their primary food sources, they routinely feed on small rodents and other mammals, birds, and reptiles (Jones
The plains gray fox ranges primarily west of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers through portions of the central plain States. The historical range for this subspecies included western Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and the eastern sections of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma in the United States, and the
The petition asserts that prairie gray fox numbers have declined in many of the States within its range (Petition, unpaginated). The petition mentions that the Department of the Interior used scent stations to track the relative abundance of several predators, including the gray fox, in many western States. The average Statewide indices between the 1980 and 1981 surveys showed a decline in Minnesota from 2.4 to 1.9, and in Oklahoma from 2.0 to 1.0 (U.S. Department of the Interior 1981, pp. 42, 70; U.S. Department of the Interior 1980, pp. 44, 72). The Statewide indices for Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin were zero in both 1980 and 1981 (U.S. Department of the Interior 1981, pp. 38, 52, 66, 78, 98; U.S. Department of the Interior 1980, pp. 40, 54, 68, 80, 100). There was an increase in the numbers of gray fox between 1980 and 1981 in Illinois; however, all of the scent stations recorded were outside the range of the prairie gray fox subspecies, so they were likely a different subspecies (U.S. Department of the Interior 1981, p. 36; U.S. Department of the Interior 1980, p. 36). The petitioners cite these numbers when asserting that the prairie gray fox was rare to absent in the plains States by 1980 (Petition, unpaginated). The petitioners cite the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' annual carnivore scent station survey as including gray fox in their “fox” numbers (Petition unpaginated); however we can find no indication in this reference that gray fox were counted during those surveys (Erb 2010, p. 43-57).
The Missouri Department of Conservation's annual Archer's Index to Furbearer Populations shows a 75 percent decline in gray fox numbers since 1983 (petition unpaginated; Blair 2011, p. 31). The petitioners state that the number of gray fox in Wisconsin, as observed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources during routine field work, was comparable to the badger, which is listed by the State as endangered (Petition, unpaginated). The report does indicate that the number of gray fox observed in 2010 was 0.78 observations per respondent, which is higher than the long-term average (during the 23 years of the study) of 0.42 observations per respondent (Kitchell 2010, unpaginated). The number of gray fox counted during the annual Bowhunter Observation Survey in Arkansas have been low but stable from 2005-2010 (Petition, unpaginated; Sasse 2011, unpaginated). The numbers of gray fox counted during the Iowa 2010 Bowhunter Observation Survey were fewer than the margin of error for some of the regions and showed an overall decline in the State (Petition, unpaginated; Roberts and Clark 2011, unpaginated). The petitioners attribute this decline to the loss of preferred habitat and the increase in agricultural habitat, which gray fox avoid (Petition, unpaginated; Cooper 2008, p. 24; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 189). Although the evidence included in the petition and within our files shows a decline in the population of the prairie gray fox for several States, there are no studies included that specifically indicate what the population of the prairie gray fox was prior to human settlement or how much the population has declined rangewide.
Eastern cottontail (
The eastern cottontail is described as having a total length of 395 to 456 mm (15.6 to 18.0 in) and weighing 801 to 1,411 g (28.3 to 49.8 ounces (oz)) for males, and 400 to 477 mm (15.7 to 18.8 in) and weighing 842 to 1,533 g (29.7 to 54.1 oz) for females (Chapman
In describing eastern cottontail habitat, Chapman
The Mearn's eastern cottontail occurs across a large portion of the eastern cottontail's range, including the entire States of Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio; most of Minnesota, Illinois, and Kentucky; southwestern New York; northern Pennsylvania; western West Virginia; northern Missouri; northeastern Kansas; eastern Nebraska; a small portion of the southeastern corner of South Dakota; and the small portion of the western edge of Virginia (Figure 1) (Hall and Kelson 1981, p. 261; Chapman
Under the Service's Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), three elements are considered in the decision concerning the establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These are applied similarly for additions to or removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. These elements include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing, delisting (removal from the list), or reclassification (
Our understanding of the petitioners' requested action is that the population of Mearn's cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana (Figure 1) be considered a DPS and listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. Therefore, in this analysis, we evaluate whether the petition provides substantial information that the Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana may constitute a DPS.
Under our DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which significant differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
The petitioners describe the area of the petitioned DPS in the revised petition submission (dated January 23, 2012) as follows: “this region covers the former Grand Prairie region of Illinois and western Indiana.” However, the submitted description does not provide exact boundaries or reference maps for the petitioned DPS. Therefore, the DPS we consider in our evaluation is based on a hand-drawn map submitted by the petitioners in the original petition submission (dated July 18, 2011) (not paginated). For our DPS evaluation, we considered references provided with the original July 18, 2011, petition submission, references provided with the revised January 23, 2012, petition submission, and other information readily available in our files.
The petition cites one study (Mankin and Warner 1999a) as the supporting evidence that the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana is: (1) Physically discrete from the rest of the subspecies; (2) ecologically distinct due to intensive agriculture leaving only artificial remnants of its original habitat; and (3) behaviorally distinct because individuals require home ranges averaging 7 times larger than other members of the eastern cottontail species.
The petitioners assert that the petitioned DPS occupies an ecologically distinct area where intensive agriculture has left only artificial remnants of its original habitat. Mankin and Warner (1999a, p. 940) state that east-central Illinois is one of the most intensively farmed regions in North America. This is supported by the findings of Ribic
The petitioners also cite Mankin and Warner (1999a) in stating that the DPS represents a population of Mearn's cottontail that is broken into small populations and is behaviorally distinct from other Mearn's cottontails. Mankin and Warner (1999a) studied the responses of Mearn's eastern cottontails to intensive row-crop agriculture in Ford County, Illinois, which is in the center of the proposed DPS. They found that the Mearn's eastern cottontail had a home range 2.3 times larger during the growing season for the crops than during the non-growing season (Mankin and Warner 1999a, p. 943). The cottontails in the study also had an overall home range that was 7 to 8 times larger than those found by previous research (Mankin and Warner 1999a, p. 945). Mankin and Warner (1999a, p. 945) specifically compared their findings to home ranges of Mearn's eastern cottontail in Wisconsin by Trent and Rongstad (1974), and indicated they were 8 times larger than Wisconsin males' home ranges and 7 times larger than females'. Chapman
Based on the information submitted with the petition and information in our files, we find that the petition presents substantial information to suggest there may be a markedly separate population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana due to behavioral differences when compared to the subspecies located elsewhere. The population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana may be discrete from the rest of the Mearn's population because they occupy an area of intensive agriculture that leads to the behavior of maintaining different home-range sizes than the subspecies in the rest of the range. Therefore, this population of Mearn's cottontail may meet the discreteness criterion that it is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon based on behavioral reasons.
There are no international governmental boundaries associated with this subspecies that are significant. The population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana lies wholly within the United States. Because this element is not relevant in this case for a finding of discreteness, it was not considered in reaching this determination.
If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the conditions described in our DPS policy, its biological and ecological significance will be considered in light of Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSes be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In making this determination, we consider available scientific evidence of the discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. As precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably from case to case, the DPS policy does not describe all the classes of information that might be used in determining the biological and ecological importance of a discrete population. However, the DPS policy does provide four possible reasons why a discrete population may be significant. As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722), this consideration of the population segment's significance may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or
(4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these criteria to be considered significant. Furthermore, the list of criteria is not exhaustive; other criteria may be used as appropriate.
The petitioners assert that the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana is significant because it represents approximately 20 percent of the range of the subspecies that was not hybridized by the introductions of other species, and thus its loss would result in a significant gap in the range of the subspecies. The petition cites one reference, Chapman and Morgan 1973, to support their assertion. Chapman and Morgan (1973, p. 6) discuss the introduction of many species and subspecies of rabbits into the eastern United States from 1920 to 1950, and the impacts on the native rabbit species in western Maryland and the nearby portions of West Virginia. They found evidence of hybridization between native eastern cottontails and other rabbit species and subspecies from other parts of the country and the hybridization of the subspecies
The petition does not present information to suggest the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana may persist in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the taxon, evidence that the population represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range, or evidence that the population differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. Additionally, we do not have information in our files to indicate that these characteristics are met.
Substantial information is not presented in the petition, nor is it available in our files, to suggest that the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana is biologically or ecologically significant to the remainder of the taxon. Therefore, we determine, based on the information provided in the petition and in our files that the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana does not meet the significance criterion of the 1996 DPS policy.
We reviewed the information presented in the petition and evaluated that information in relation to information readily available in our files. On the basis of this review, we find that neither the petition, nor information readily available in our files, suggests that the Mearn's eastern cottontail population in east-central Illinois and western Indiana meets the criteria for being significant under our DPS policy. Although the population may meet the criteria for being discrete under the DPS policy, neither the information in the petition, nor the information readily available in our files, suggests that this population of Mearn's eastern cottontail may be significant to the remainder of the taxon. Because both discreteness and significance are required to satisfy the DPS policy, we have determined that the Mearn's eastern cottontail population in east-central Illinois and western Indiana does not satisfy the elements of being a DPS under our 1996 policy and, therefore, is not a listable entity under section 3(16) of the Act. Because the petition does not present substantial information that the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana is a DPS, we did not evaluate whether the information contained in the petition regarding the conservation status was substantial.
We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with the conservation of the population of Mearn's eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana. If you wish to provide information regarding the Mearn's eastern cottontail, you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor at the Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Service Field Office (see
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information must contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information regarding threats to the prairie gray fox and the plains spotted skunk, as presented in the petition and other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.
The petitioners claim that threats to the plains spotted skunk include habitat loss and modification. The petition suggests that loss of grassland and early successional habitat has contributed to declining population trends of 90 to 100 percent throughout the subspecies' range (Petition, unpaginated). Plains spotted skunks require some early successional component to their habitat to provide cover and denning areas (Petition, unpaginated; Lesmeister 2007, p. 56; Lesmeister
The petition claims that the plains spotted skunk has since declined (Petition, unpaginated; Gompper and Hackett 2005, pp. 199-200) because of changes in agriculture, silviculture, and climate. Because plains spotted skunks rely on early successional habitat, management activities or lack of management that reduce the occurrence of dense vegetative stands or modify forest structure to more open, mature stands could be detrimental to the subspecies (Petition, unpaginated; Lesmeister 2007, p. 56; Lesmeister 2009, pp. 23-24).
The information readily available in our files supports the petitioners' claims that the plains spotted skunk may be declining rangewide due to loss, degradation, and modification of early successional habitat. The plains spotted skunk has apparently undergone long-term fluctuations in population (Choate
Although there does not appear to be a single cause of decline, a suite of potential factors are suggested consistently in the literature. The decline of small farms, the advent of agriculture practices that encourage removal of fence rows and brush piles, intensive use of pesticides, improved grain management practices, and the end of large haystack construction are implicated as potential causes for the species' decline in landscapes dominated by human activity (Choate
Habitat loss or modification might also be currently occurring in more natural forested landscapes where the plains spotted skunk occurs. In the Ouachita Mountains and Ozark Plateau, use of forested areas was limited to young forest stands with closed canopy and dense understory, areas with fallen logs and brushpiles, ravine bottoms, or stands that had undergone timber stand improvement (TSI) and had high levels of ground litter and slash (McCullough 1983, pp. 40-41; Lesmeister
In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, as well as other information available in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to historical and currently ongoing habitat loss and degradation due to modifications of early successional habitat. Further assessment of population declines due to the loss of early successional habitat caused by changes in agricultural practices, changes in silvicultural practices, and reduction in food availability by intensive use of pesticides is necessary.
The petitioners did not present information regarding the overutilization of the plains spotted skunk for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
Harvest pressure on the plains spotted skunk during the 1930s has received little consideration for contributing to the decline of the subspecies, but might have been a factor historically (Nilz and Finck 2008, p. 19). Available harvest records from the 1930s to 1940s (Novak
The petitioners did not present information regarding diseases that may affect the plains spotted skunk. The petitioners claim that the plains spotted skunk is experiencing unnaturally high levels of predation, mainly by birds of prey, because of loss of protective cover provided by early successional habitat (Petition, unpaginated). Lesmeister
Based on our review of information provided by the petitioners and readily available in our files, the plains spotted skunk may be declining rangewide due to predation. The most common natural predators of the plains spotted skunks are owls and mesocarnivores (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4; Schwartz and Schwartz 2001, p. 329). Lesmeister
Diseases affecting the subspecies include pneumonia, coccidiosis, and rabies (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4). The plains spotted skunk, however, is often overrated as a carrier of rabies; fewer cases were documented in spotted skunks than in domestic cats, cattle, dogs, or striped skunks (Hazard 1982, p. 145). Viral disease, such as parvovirus, or mink enteritis virus, may contribute to localized population declines, and some viral diseases can exhibit rapid spread and long-term impacts to local population viability, but do not appear to impact the species as a whole (Gompper and Hackett 2005, p. 200). Based on information readily available in our files, disease may have been a cause of historical decline, but we do not have information to indicate that disease is presenting an ongoing threat to the plains spotted skunk. As we proceed with the 12-month status review, we will further investigate whether disease is an ongoing threat to the subspecies.
In summary, the petition and information in our files identifies excessive predation that may be occurring at a higher rate than naturally expected as a threat to the plains spotted skunk. Therefore, we find that the information provided in the petition, as well as other information readily available in our files, presents substantial scientific and commercial information to indicate that the plains spotted skunk may warrant listing due to predation.
The petitioners state that there currently is no mechanism to protect habitat or garner appropriate resources for species conservation.
We do not have any information in our files to indicate whether any regulatory mechanisms that are designed to alleviate threats to the species (
Humans are reported as the main cause of mortality in less natural landscapes (Kinlaw 1995, p. 4). Death is caused by vehicle collision, poisoning, shooting, domestic dogs and cats, and trappers who target plains spotted skunks or take them incidentally when trapping for other species (Jones
We do not have information in our files to indicate any potential threat to the plains spotted skunk due to other natural or manmade factors. Based on
We reviewed the information presented in the petition and evaluated that information in relation to information readily available in our files. On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we determine that the petition does present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the plains spotted skunk as an endangered or threatened species throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided under factors A and C.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the plains spotted skunk may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing the plains spotted skunk as an endangered or threatened species under the Act is warranted.
The “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.
The petitioners claim that habitat loss and modification are threats to the prairie gray fox. The petitioners state that the gray fox requires early successional cover, grassland, or dense forest, and that the decline of this habitat within the range of this subspecies has contributed to its decline (Petition, unpaginated). The gray fox's use of deciduous or pine woody habitat is well established in the literature (Chamberlain and Leopold 2000, p. 749; Jones
The petitioners assert that the gray fox requires early successional cover, grassland, or dense forest and that the decline of this habitat type has contributed to the subspecies decline (Petition, unpaginated). Gray fox prefer wooded habitat, areas of mixed grassland and forest, and early successional areas (Cooper 2008, p. 4; Chamberlain and Leopold 2000, p. 749; Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p. 226; Fritzell and Haroldson 1982, p. 4). Gray fox utilize this dense protective cover especially during the day when they are not as active (Haroldson and Fritzell 1984, p. 227). There is evidence that gray fox are more abundant in areas where there is woody or dense cover and less abundant in agricultural areas (Cooper 2008, p. 4). Cooper (2008, p. 26) suggests that habitat loss is one of the gray fox's biggest threats and that the changes in the landscape, predominantly to agriculture in the Midwest, have adversely affected gray fox populations. The petitioners have provided evidence of low or declining numbers of gray fox within the range of the prairie gray fox subspecies (Blair 2011, p. 31; Roberts and Clark 2011, unpaginated; Sasse 2011, unpaginated; Kitchell 2010, unpaginated; U.S. Department of the Interior 1981, pp. 38-98; U.S. Department of the Interior 1980, pp. 40-100). The conversion from native woody habitat to agricultural practices has likely impacted the prairie gray fox as all of the States within its range have agriculture to differing degrees. When settlers arrived in the Midwest, the forests were converted to agriculture before the technology was available to convert prairie lands (U.S. Geological Survey 1998, p. 4). For example, prior to 1860, forest areas were the primary source of cropland in Illinois (U.S. Geological Survey 1998, p. 4). Due to the conversion to agriculture, timber harvest, and development, approximately 70 percent of the available forest land in the Midwest has been lost since 1920 (U.S. Geological Survey 1998, p. 4), and landcover in the Midwest consists of approximately 44 percent agriculture (Mankin and Warner 1999a, p. 956). Although the petitioners do not provide information on the amount of habitat that has been lost throughout the prairie gray fox's range, we believe there is substantial
In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, as well as other information available in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the loss of early successional cover, grassland, or dense forest habitat within the range of this subspecies.
The petitioners state that the threats of continued human hunting and trapping of this subspecies is “an additional stressor” but do not provide information as to the numbers of gray fox being harvested in any of the States within the range of the prairie gray fox (Petition, unpaginated).
Fritzel and Haroldson (1984, p. 4) state that “undoubtedly the most important predator of gray fox is man,” referencing specific citations indicating the importance of gray fox pelts in the 1970s. An estimated 26,109 gray fox pelts were harvested in the United States during the 1970-1971 season, increasing to 163,458 during the 1975-1976 season. It was estimated in 1977 that approximately half of the gray fox population in Wisconsin was harvested annually (Fritzel and Haroldson 1984, p. 4). Illinois hunters harvested 9,086 gray fox pelts in the winter of 1977-1978 (McFarland 2007, p. 9). More recently, during the 2010-2011 season, gray fox harvested in the State of Missouri increased 112 percent, while the annual Archer's Index to Furbearer Populations (where deer and turkey archery hunters record sightings of furbearers each fall) shows a 75 percent decline in gray fox numbers since 1983 (Petition, unpaginated; Missouri Department of Conservation 2011 Furbearer Program Annual Report, pp. 11-12; Blair 2011, p. 31). According to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2010-2011 Furbearing Animal Report, 976 gray fox were purchased by licensed fur buyers in the State (Sasse 2011, unpaginated). The report indicates that there was an overall increase in pelts purchased for this season after an overall low in 2009-2010, with the number of pelts purchased increasing by 91 percent. The report also indicates actual numbers of furbearers harvested is likely underreported.
Although there is evidence in the literature that gray fox have been hunted in the past and continue to be harvested to some degree, which may have individual and localized impacts, neither the petition nor information readily available in our files indicates that harvest is affecting the subspecies overall. Therefore, based on information readily available in our files, overutilization may have occurred and may have potentially caused historical decline, but neither the petition nor the information readily available in our files indicate that the overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a current threat to the prairie gray fox. However, as we proceed with the 12-month status review, we will further investigate this factor to determine whether overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is an ongoing threat to the subspecies.
The petitioners did not present information regarding disease affecting the prairie gray fox. The petitioners claim that the loss of dense cover available to the prairie gray fox due to habitat degradation has made the subspecies more susceptible to predation from coyotes
Jones
We found few sources in our files referencing the effects of disease on gray fox populations. Fritzell and Haroldson
The information provided by the petitioners and within our files indicates that the gray fox is being preyed on by coyotes and, to a lesser degree, bobcats; however, we do not have information as to whether the predation rate has increased beyond a natural level. Our files also contain some information that the impacts of disease may be detrimental to individual populations of the prairie gray fox, but we do not have information as to what impact disease is having on the subspecies.
Therefore, based on information readily available in our files, gray fox are currently being preyed on by coyotes, but we do not have information to indicate that disease or predation is an ongoing threat to the prairie gray fox. As we proceed with the 12-month status review, we will further investigate whether disease or predation are an ongoing threat to the subspecies.
No information on this factor is provided in the petition.
We do not have any information in our files to indicate the amount of protection currently being afforded the prairie gray fox within individual States. Therefore, we find that the petition and the information readily available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the prairie gray fox such that the petitioned action may be warranted. However, as we proceed with the 12-month status review, we will further investigate whether the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may be a threat to the prairie gray fox.
The petitioners did not present information on whether or how other natural or manmade factors are affecting the prairie gray fox.
We do not have information in our files to indicate any potential threat to the prairie gray fox due to other natural or manmade factors. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that other natural or manmade factors present a threat to the prairie gray fox such that the petitioned action may be warranted. However, as we proceed with the 12-month status review, we will further investigate whether other natural or manmade factors, such as potential impacts from climate change, may be a threat to the prairie gray fox.
We reviewed the information presented in the petition and evaluated that information in relation to information readily available in our files. On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we determine that the petition does present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the prairie gray fox throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided under factor A.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the prairie gray fox may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing the prairie gray fox under the Act is warranted.
The “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Columbia, Missouri, and Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Services Field Offices.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
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.
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.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 3, 2013 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725-17th Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension and revision to the currently approved information collection of the Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) of Covered Commodities.
Comments must be received by February 4, 2013.
Submitted comments will be available for public inspection at
Julie Henderson, Director, COOL Division, AMS, USDA, by telephone at (202) 720-4486, or email at
Individuals who supply covered commodities, whether directly to retailers or indirectly through other participants in the marketing chain, are required to establish and maintain country of origin and, if applicable, method of production information for the covered commodities and supply this information to retailers. As a result producers, handlers, manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and retailers of covered commodities are affected.
This public reporting burden is a necessary to ensure accuracy of country of origin and method of production declarations relied upon at the point of sale at retail. The public reporting burden also assures that all parties involved in supplying covered commodities to retail stores maintain and convey accurate information as required.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with cooperative wildlife damage management programs.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 4, 2013.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the national management information system for cooperative wildlife damage management programs, contact Mr. Robert Myers, Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 651-8845. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
Wildlife Services (WS) of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, cooperates with Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private individuals to research and implement the best methods of managing conflicts between wildlife and human health and safety, agriculture, property, and natural resources.
Program activities usually consist of either cooperative direct control or technical assistance programs. As part of its program, WS enters into agreements to document the terms and conditions for cooperating with parties outside of APHIS (those parties are referred to as “cooperators”). In response to requests for assistance in managing wildlife damage, WS collects information about organizations, industry, Federal and non-Federal entities, and members of public as part of its program. Information is collected through the use of work initiation documents, cooperative agreement forms, supply order forms and sales records, project reports, and a resource values survey. The information collected through these forms is used by the Agency to:
• Identify cooperators appropriately.
• Identify lands on which WS personnel will work.
• Differentiate between cooperators (i.e., property owners, land managers, or resource owners) who request assistance in managing damage caused by wildlife.
• Identify the land areas on which wildlife damage management activities would be conducted.
• Identify the relationship between resources or property, WS' protection of such resources or property, and the damage caused by wildlife.
• Determine the methods or damage management activities to deal with the damage.
• Establish a record that a cooperative agreement has been entered into with a cooperator.
• Document that permission has been obtained from landowners to go on the cooperator's property.
• Record wildlife damage occurrences on cooperator's property and steps to address them.
• Record occurrences that may have affected non-target species or humans during, or related to, WS project actions.
• Determine satisfaction with service to help WS evaluate, modify, and improve its program.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of mangoes from India into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 4, 2013.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the importation of mangoes from India, contact Mr. William Wesela, Regional Director, Preclearance and Offshore Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2229. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
In accordance with these regulations, APHIS allows the importation of mangoes from India into the continental United States under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These conditions involve the use of information collection activities, one of which is a phytosanitary certificate. As a condition of entry, the mangoes must undergo irradiation treatment and be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with additional declaration statements providing specific information regarding the treatment and inspection of the mangoes and the orchards in which they are grown. The additional information collection activities that are required include a preclearance workplan, trust fund agreement, compliance agreement, monitoring and certification of inspections and treatments, and recordkeeping.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) preliminarily determines that imports from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) of certain steel threaded rod products with 1.25 percent or more chromium, by weight, produced by Gem-Year Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Gem-Year”), and otherwise meeting the description of in-scope merchandise, are within the class or kind of merchandise subject to the
Toni Dach, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1655.
The merchandise covered by the order is steel threaded rod.
The merchandise subject to this antidumping circumvention inquiry consists of steel threaded rod from the PRC produced by Gem-Year containing greater than 1.25 percent chromium, by weight, and otherwise meeting the requirements of the scope of the
The Department has conducted this preliminary determination of circumvention in accordance with section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.225. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a proprietary document with a public version, and the public version is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
As detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily determine that imports from the PRC of certain steel threaded rod products with 1.25 percent or more chromium, by weight, produced by Gem-Year, and otherwise meeting the description of in-scope merchandise, are subject to the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of entries of merchandise subject to this inquiry produced by Gem-Year, and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2012, the date of the initiation of this inquiry. We will also instruct CBP to require a cash deposit of estimated duties at the applicable rates for each unliquidated entry of the product entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2012, the date of the initiation of this inquiry, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2).
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments according to a schedule released by the Department concurrent with this notice. Interested parties will be notified by the Department of the location and time of any hearing, if one is requested. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice.
This preliminary determination of circumvention is in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225.
This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and
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 Trade Mission to Egypt and Kuwait March 10-14, 2013, published at 77 FR 33439, June 6, 2012 to revise the application deadline from December 14, 2012 to the new deadline of January 18, 2013.
In June 2012 the Department of Commerce initiated recruitment for participation in the U.S. Trade Mission to Egypt and Kuwait March 10-14, 2013, published at 77 FR 33439, June 6, 2012. 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 January 18, 2013. Interested firms 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.
The Timeframe for Recruitment and Applications section of the Trade Mission to Egypt and Kuwait is amended to read as follows:
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including posting Export.gov—and other Internet Web sites; publication in trade publications and association newsletters; direct outreach to the Department's clients; posting in the
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce is organizing a Trade Mission to Bogotá, Colombia and Panama City, Panama. Dates are May 13-16, 2013. This will be an executive-led mission, which will focus on helping U.S. companies launch or increase their export business in the promising sectors within the transportation infrastructure markets of these two countries. The mission will include business-to-business matchmaking appointments with local companies, as well as market briefings, and networking events. In both Colombia and Panama the governments and private sector are investing some $30 billion in infrastructure projects. As a result, the mission will focus on export-ready U.S. firms in the following sectors: Building products, construction equipment, electrical power systems, safety and security equipment, airport supplies, logistics and distribution solutions providers, port equipment, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS).
Colombia ranks solidly with the group of progressive, industrializing countries worldwide that have diversified agriculture, resources, and productive capacities. Despite the global economic crisis, Colombia's economic prospects are positive. In 2011, Colombia enjoyed 5.9% GDP growth and should maintain 4% in 2012. Colombia is attracting record amounts of foreign direct investment (FDI), which is further leading to rapid industrial development, necessitating the need for improved infrastructure. In 2011, Colombia attracted $13 billion in FDI, and is on pace to attract $15 billion in 2012. In addition, per capita income continues to grow as Colombia's middle class has doubled in the past 10 years.
Colombia is the third largest market in the region, after Mexico and Brazil, and is ranked 22nd as a market for U.S. exports globally. Over the past 10 years, Colombia has become one of the most stable economies in the region. Improved security, sound government policies, steady economic growth, moderate inflation and a wide range of opportunities make it worthwhile for U.S. exporters to take a serious look at Colombia.
Bogotá, the capital of Colombia, generates approximately 30 percent of the country's total gross domestic product (GDP). Bogotá offers diverse business opportunities in almost all economic sectors.
The overall improvement in the national safety and security situation in Colombia has allowed the government to focus on improving its infrastructure development, which along with a boom in the extractive industries, has fueled the growth of U.S. exports to Colombia, including opportunities generated by highway, hotel and housing construction in Bogotá and coastal cities such as Cartagena and Barranquilla. The government of Colombia has earmarked $26 billion over the next 4 years for primarily road projects. However, on-going and future projects exist in airport modernization, sea and river port developments, and rail line upgrades. In addition, most major cities in Colombia are looking for solutions to improve internal transportation, including mass transit. A recently completed U.S. Trade Development Agency reverse trade mission focused on ITS highlights the opportunities that exist in Colombia across the board in transportation infrastructure.
Colombia's traditional acceptance of U.S. brands as well as U.S. and international standards provide a solid foundation for U.S. firms seeking to do business there. Moreover, the implementation of the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement on May 15, 2012 provided immediate duty-free entry for 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial exports to Colombia, with remaining tariffs phased out over the next 10 years. The Agreement also opens the market for remanufactured goods and provides greater protection for intellectual property rights (IPR).
Panama has historically served as the crossroads of trade for the Americas. Its strategic location as a bridge between two oceans and the meeting of two continents has made Panama not only a maritime and air transport hub, but also an international trading, banking, and services center. Panama's global and regional prominence is being enhanced by recent trade liberalization and privatization, and it is participating actively in the hemispheric movement toward free trade agreements. Panama's dollar-based economy offers low inflation in comparison with neighboring countries and zero foreign exchange risk. Its government is stable and democratic and actively seeks foreign investment in all sectors, especially services, tourism and retirement properties.
Panama and the U.S. recently implemented a Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) that has had the effect of eliminating some 90% of tariffs and duties on U.S. exports to Panama. But even before the implementation of the TPA, the U.S. was Panama's most important trading partner, with about 30% of the import market, and U.S. products have enjoyed a high degree of acceptance in Panama. In 2011, U.S. exports to Panama jumped 34% to $8.25 billion—in no small part due to the fact that Panama's economy grew 10.5%. However, international competition for sales is strong across sectors including telecommunications equipment, automobiles, heavy construction equipment, consumer electronics, computers, apparel, gifts, and novelty products.
Panama now enjoys investment grade rating status, granting the Government of Panama international recognition for recent tax reforms and its record of steady GDP growth while keeping its deficits under control (even in 2009, a dismal year for the world economy, Panama's economy grew 2.9% and the Government of Panama's deficit was only 1% of GDP). Not only does the investment-grade rating lower the cost of borrowing for the Government of Panama, but it sends a strong market signal that Panama, even while carrying a debt ratio that is relatively high, is one of only five Latin American countries to achieve this distinction.
Panama's economy is based primarily on a well-developed services sector, accounting for about 75% of GDP. Services include the Panama Canal, banking, the Colon Free Zone, insurance, container ports, and flagship registry. Panama is currently engaged in the Panama Canal expansion project. This project, in conjunction with the expansion of the capacities of its ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, will solidify Panama's global logistical advantage in the Western Hemisphere.
This logistical platform has aided the success of the Colon Free Zone (CFZ), the second largest in the world after Hong Kong, which has become a vital trading and transshipment center serving the region and the world. CFZ imports—a broad array of luxury goods, electronic products, clothing, and other consumer products—arrive from all over
This trade mission is designed to help U.S. firms initiate or expand their exports to Colombia and Panama by providing business-to-business introductions and market access information.
The mission will stop in Panama City, Panama and Bogotá, Colombia. In each city, participants will meet with pre-screened potential agents, distributors, and representatives, as well as other business partners and government officials. They will also attend market briefings by U.S. Embassy officials, as well as networking events offering further opportunities to speak with local business and industry decision-makers.
All parties interested in participating in the Executive-led Trade Mission to Colombia and Panama must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 15 U.S. companies and/or trade associations and maximum of 17 companies and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. U.S. companies or trade associations already doing business with Colombia and Panama, as well as U.S. companies or trade associations seeking to enter these countries for the first time may apply.
After a company and/or trade association has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee will be $3,980 for large firm or trade association and $2,675 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME).
• An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, 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, 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 or trade organization, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and 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.
Selection will be based on the following criteria, listed in decreasing order of importance:
• Suitability of the company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') products or services for the Colombian and Panamanian markets
• Company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') potential for business in Colombia and Panama, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the trade mission
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Applications can be downloaded from the trade mission Web site or can be obtained by contacting Arica Young, Carlos Suarez or Enrique Tellez at the U.S. Department of Commerce (see contact details below.) Completed applications should be submitted to Arica Young, Carlos Suarez or Enrique Tellez.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (CS) is organizing a trade mission to Asia, that will include the Trade Winds—Asia business forum in Seoul, Korea, May 2013. U.S. trade mission members will participate in the Trade Winds—Asia business forum in Seoul, Korea (which is also open to U.S. companies not participating in the trade mission). Trade mission participants may participate in their choice of mission stops. On the first leg of the trade mission, prior to the Korean trade mission stop, participants may choose to participate in a trade mission stop in either: The Philippines and/or Hong Kong. Trade mission participants may then choose to participate in a trade mission stop in Korea, during which trade mission participants may participate in the Trade Winds—Asia business forum. Following the trade mission stop in Seoul, Korea, trade mission participants may choose to participate in a trade mission stop in either: Japan and/or Taiwan.
Each trade mission stop will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors and joint-venture partners, and networking events. Trade mission participants electing to participate in the Trade Winds—Asia business forum may attend regional and industry-specific sessions and consultations with CS Senior Commercial Officers based in Asia.
This mission is open to U.S. companies and trade associations from a cross section of industries with growth potential in The Philippines, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan and Taiwan, including but not limited to: Aerospace and aviation, automotive electronics, computer services & software, consumer goods, defense industry equipment, food processing systems, education, electrical power systems, electronic components, energy (both new and renewable, entertainment and media, environmental technologies and services, financial services, franchising, healthcare & medical, hotel/restaurant equipment, housing products, industrial chemical, info. & comm. technology, information security services, logistics development, machine tools and equipment, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, outbound travel and tourism, pet products, pleasure boats and accessories, pollution control equipment, port construction, retail, safety and security equipment, semiconductors, specialty chemicals, telecommunications equipment, transportation infrastructure, travel and tourism services.
On March 15, 2012, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) went into force, becoming our nation's largest Free Trade Agreement (spell out) since NAFTA. The agreement has the potential to increase U.S. exports to Korea by approximately $10-12 billion, and it will be especially beneficial for U.S. small and medium enterprises (spell out).
The amount of trade between, the U.S. and Korea exceeded $100 billion for the first time ever. U.S. exports reached an all-time high of $43.5 billion and also increased 12% over 2010 levels.
Korea is the United States' seventh-largest trading partner. The U.S. is the third-largest exporter to Korea, with a 9% market share. Key competitors include: China, with 16.8%; Japan, with 15.3%; and the EU (27 nations), with 10%. Since the EU had already implemented its FTA with Korea, U.S. firms will now be in a stronger competitive situation following KORUS implementation.
Korea's projected 2012 GDP growth is forecasted at around 3.6%, but could come in slightly lower given global economic sluggishness. Its commercial banks maintain strong reserves, in case of a possible worldwide slowdown or difficulties within the Euro zone. Korea will continue to focus its development on key growth sectors. Patents and trademarks issued by the Korean Patent Office exceeded 362,000 filings in 2010. The increasing trend in local patent and trademark filings reflects the move toward more technology-intensive and capital-intensive industries and services.
Best market prospects for Korea include: The aerospace Industry, specialty chemicals; cosmetics; defense industry equipment; education services; new and renewable energy, entertainment and media, franchising; medical equipment and devices, pollution control equipment; semiconductors, and travel & tourism.
With a population of 23 million, Taiwan is a thriving democracy, vibrant market economy, and a highly attractive export market, especially for U.S. firms. In 2011, Taiwan was ranked as the tenth-largest trading partner in goods with the U.S., putting it ahead of markets such as India and Italy. It is also the sixth-largest agricultural market for the U.S., and the fifth-largest source of foreign students in U.S. higher education. Taiwan is the world's fourth-largest holder of foreign exchange reserves, with over $385 billion in 2011. The Taiwan economy softened slightly after 2010, but still enjoyed 4% GDP growth in 2011. Unemployment has remained relatively low, and an appreciating currency makes U.S. goods and services attractive to Taiwan buyers.
Taiwan's real GDP increased by 4% in 2011, and this growth was mainly driven by strong export growth and private-investment expansion. In addition, the tariff reductions and exemptions from the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which became effective on January 1, 2011, helped spur Taiwan's exports to China.
However, Taiwan's export growth may be significantly impacted by the New Taiwan dollar's appreciation against the U.S. dollar. Local private consumption is expected to expand continuously as a result of the recent
Taiwan's best prospect sectors for U.S. exports include information communications and technologies, safety and security equipment, renewable energy technologies, publishing services, education and training services, travel and tourism, electronic components, pet products, and medical devices and equipment.
Japan is the world's third largest economy, after the United States and China, with a GDP of roughly $5.9 trillion. Japan is our fourth largest export market, receiving $66.2 billion in goods and $47.6 billion in services from the United States in 2011. Japan is also the second largest foreign investor in the United States, with more than $257 billion invested.
Japan's economy is highly efficient and competitive and its reservoir of industrial leadership and technicians, well-educated and industrious work force, high savings and investment rates, and intensive promotion of industrial development and trade has produced a mature industrial economy. Japan has few natural resources, and trade helps the nation earn the foreign exchange needed to purchase raw materials for its economy. Tokyo alone forms the core of an urban area that boasts a total population of over 35 million, roughly equivalent to the New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas combined, and accounts for about one-third of Japan's total GDP. Consumers are highly sophisticated and discerning and are on the vanguard of the latest technological developments, trends and fashions, while the rapidly aging population is creating demand for new and innovative solutions across all areas of the economy. All of this creates demand for high-quality, innovative Made-in-USA goods and services. And with the continued strength of the Japanese yen against the U.S. dollar, American goods and services have never been more affordable for Japanese buyers. Best prospect sectors include: Aerospace, computer software, cosmetics/toiletries, education and corporate training, electronic components, medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, renewable energy, safety and security, soil remediation and engineering services, telecommunications equipment, and travel/tourism, along with hot new emerging sectors such as biotechnology, healthcare IT and nanotechnology.
Most globally competitive American and international firms compete heavily in the Japanese market, and partner with Japanese firms worldwide. Savvy observers agree that an active engagement with the Japanese market remains critical to the success of American firms both large and small, whether in Japan, in other world markets, or even back home in the United States.
Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (PRC) since its reversion in 1997, has proven resilient in past economic crises. Dominant and sustained drivers of economic growth include private consumption (retail), transportation and logistics, and business services, real estate development (bolstered by ongoing public infrastructure works), and tourism. Hong Kong has benefited from continued economic integration with mainland China's strong economy. In particular, Beijing's policy of opening its service sector and gradually expanding the scope of the offshore Renminbi (RMB—the PRC's currency) market in Hong Kong and the sustained high numbers of mainland Chinese visitors (28 million in 2011) have strengthened Hong Kong's economy.
Hong Kong is an ideal platform for doing business in Asia, especially for mainland China. Hong Kong is a free port that does not levy any customs tariffs and has limited excise duties. Its strong rule of law and respect for property rights make it a strategic platform for U.S. companies, especially small- and medium-sized firms, seeking to do business in Asia. Hong Kong's statutory trade promotion body, the Trade Development Council, seized upon this unique positioning to create the Pacific Bridge Initiative in late 2010, the first such agreement with a foreign government affiliate explicitly supporting the United States.
Hong Kong's businesses enjoy close links to mainland China and the rest of Asia. According to Hong Kong Government statistics, there are 1,328 subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies in Hong Kong, making the United States the largest source of subsidiaries in Hong Kong. Among those U.S. subsidiaries, 840 are regional headquarters or regional offices. Hong Kong's key characteristics are its openness, and promotion of tourism, trade and investment.
In 2011, U.S. exports to Hong Kong were $27.3 billion, which constituted 5.6% of Hong Kong's imports (2011) and ranked the territory as the U.S.'s 10th largest export market. Its major trading partners: Mainland China, United States, EU, Japan, and Taiwan. Hong Kong has world-class infrastructure; a free flow of information; no restrictions on inward or outward investment; no foreign-exchange controls; no nationality restrictions on corporate or sectoral ownership; a simple, low-tax regime; and is a global financial hub. In addition, Hong Kong citizens speak excellent English and the Hong Kong Dollar is pegged to the U.S. Dollar.
United States goods exports to the Philippines in 2011 were USD7.7 billion, up 4.5% (USD330 million) from 2010, but down 12.3% from 2000. The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2011 were: Electrical machinery, machinery, cereals (wheat), optic and medical instruments, and food waste and animal feed (soybean residues). U.S. service exports to the Philippines totaled USD2.2 billion in 2011.
U.S. exports of agricultural products to the Philippines totaled USD2.1 billion in 2011, the 11th-largest U.S. Ag export market. Leading categories include: Wheat, soybean meal, dairy products, and red meats fresh/chilled/frozen.
U.S. exports of private commercial services (i.e., excluding military and government) to the Philippines were USD2.2 billion in 2011 (latest data available), 17% more than the 2009 level. The private-services category (business, professional, and technical services) and travel category accounted for most of U.S. service exports in 2010.
Philippine GDP growth slowed to 3.7% in 2011 following one-off factors in 2010 (election spending and heavy post-typhoon reconstruction); lower-than-targeted government expenditures; and adverse developments globally. The Government reverted to a deficit reduction path in 2011 after opting for higher deficits in 2008 to 2010 to help support economic growth and generate employment. However, the Government spent significantly below target, contributing to the economy's weaker-than-expected expansion.
The goal of the Asia trade mission is to help participating firms gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports to Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong and The Philippines. The delegation will have access to CS Senior Commercial Officers
All parties interested in participating in the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service Trade Mission to Asia must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below.
A minimum of 65 companies and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool on a rolling basis. Additional delegates will be accepted based on available space. Each of the trade mission stops (Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, the Philippines) is designed for participation of a maximum of 30 participants. U.S. companies and/or trade associations already doing business in, or seeking to enter Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong and the Philippines for the first time may apply.
After a company has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required.
For one mission stop, the participation fee will be $2,450 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)
Each additional mission stop will result in an additional participation fee of $1,000 for both small or medium sized enterprises and large firms alike.
An additional representative will require an additional fee of $325 per mission stop for both small or medium sized enterprises and large firms alike.
Expenses for travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals (e.g., local transportation) will be the responsibility of each mission participant.
• An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. Applicant should specify in their application and supplemental materials which trade mission stops they are interested in participating in. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, 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 U.S., or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service. In the case of a trade association or trade organization, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and 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 % U.S. content.
Selection will be based on the following criteria:
• Suitability of the company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') products or services to each of the markets the company has expressed an interest in visiting as part of this trade mission.
• Company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') potential for business in each of the markets the company has expressed an interest in visiting as part of this trade mission.
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Diversity of company size, sector or subsector, and location 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 will begin immediately and conclude no later than March 30, 2013. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis beginning December 17, 2012, until the minimum of 65 participants is selected. After March 30, 2013, companies will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of standard prices and fee percentage.
NMFS publishes individual fishing quota (IFQ) standard prices and fee percentage for the IFQ cost recovery program in the halibut and sablefish fisheries of the North Pacific. The fee percentage for 2012 is 2.1%. This action is intended to provide holders of halibut and sablefish IFQ permits with the 2012 standard prices and fee percentage to calculate the required payment for IFQ cost recovery fees due by January 31, 2013.
Effective December 4, 2012.
Troie Zuniga, Fee Coordinator, 907-586-7231.
NMFS Alaska Region administers the halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) programs in the North Pacific. The IFQ programs are limited access systems authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. Fishing under the IFQ programs began in March 1995. Regulations implementing the IFQ program are set forth at 50 CFR part 679.
In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended to, among other things, require the Secretary of Commerce to “collect a fee to recover the actual costs directly related to the management and enforcement of any * * * individual quota program.” This requirement was further amended in 2006 to include collection of the actual costs of data collection, and to replace the reference to “individual quota program” with a more general reference to “limited access privilege program” at section 304(d)(2)(A). This section of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also specifies an upper limit on these fees, when the fees must be collected, and where the fees must be deposited.
On March 20, 2000, NMFS published regulations implementing the IFQ cost recovery program (65 FR 14919), which are set forth at § 679.45. Under the regulations, an IFQ permit holder incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish that is landed on his or her IFQ permit(s). The IFQ permit holder is responsible for self-collecting the fee liability for all IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings on his or her permit(s). The IFQ permit holder is also responsible for submitting a fee liability payment to NMFS on or before the due date of January 31 of the year following the year in which the IFQ landings were made. The dollar amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying the annual IFQ fee percentage (3 percent or less) by the ex-vessel value of all IFQ landings made on a permit and summing the totals of each permit (if more than one).
The fee liability is based on the sum of all payments made to fishermen for the sale of the fish during the year. This includes any retro-payments (e.g., bonuses, delayed partial payments, post-season payments) made to the IFQ permit holder for previously landed IFQ halibut or sablefish.
For purposes of calculating IFQ cost recovery fees, NMFS distinguishes between two types of ex-vessel value: Actual and standard. Actual ex-vessel value is the amount of all compensation, monetary or non-monetary, that an IFQ permit holder received as payment for his or her IFQ fish sold. Standard ex-vessel value is the default value on which to base fee liability calculations. IFQ permit holders have the option of using actual ex-vessel value if they can satisfactorily document it; otherwise, the standard ex-vessel value is used.
Regulations at § 679.45(c)(2)(i) require the Regional Administrator to publish IFQ standard prices during the last quarter of each calendar year. These standard prices are used, along with estimates of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings, to calculate standard values. The standard prices are described in U.S. dollars per IFQ equivalent pound for IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings made during the year. IFQ equivalent pound(s) is the weight (in pounds) for an IFQ landing, calculated as the round weight for sablefish, and headed and gutted net weight for halibut. NMFS calculates the standard prices to closely reflect the variations in the actual ex-vessel values of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings by month and port or port-group. The standard prices for IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish are listed in the tables that follow the next section. Data from ports are combined as necessary to protect confidentiality.
Section 304(d)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies a maximum fee of 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under an IFQ Program. NMFS annually sets a fee percentage for sablefish and halibut IFQ holders that is based on the actual annual costs associated with certain management and enforcement functions, as well as the standard ex-vessel value of the catch subject to the IFQ fee for the current year. The method used by NMFS to calculate the IFQ fee percentage is described at § 679.45(d)(2)(ii).
Regulations at § 679.45(d)(3)(i) require NMFS to publish the IFQ fee percentage for the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a one-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will start at 9 a.m. on Thursday, December 20, 2012.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Colonial Hotel, One Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01880; telephone: (781) 245-9300; fax: (781) 245-0842.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
Following introductions and any announcements, the Council will make final decisions on Framework Adjustment 48 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Specifically it is scheduled to review and select preferred alternatives concerning the following issues:
Acceptable biological catch and annual catch limits for fishing year 2013 and beyond;
Management measures for sector vessels (including measures related to at-sea and dockside monitoring of sector trips);
Sector vessel access to parts of the year-round closed areas; and
Changes to the accountability measures for commercial and recreational vessels, gear requirements for small-mesh bottom trawl vessels fishing on Georges Bank, and several other issues.
The Council also will review proposed monitoring requirements for a sector exemption request designed to facilitate the targeting of redfish. Any other related business that has not been covered under the stated agenda items listed above will be considered before adjournment at the end of the day.
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
Notice of telephonic prehearing conference for the consolidated case: In the Matter of MAXFIELD AND OBERTON HOLDINGS, LLC and ZEN MAGNETS, LLC, CPSC Docket No. 12-1 and CPSC Docket No.12-2.
January 10, 2013, 12:30 p.m. Mountain/1:30 p.m. Central/2:30 p.m. Eastern.
Members of the public are welcome to attend the prehearing conference at the Courtroom of Hon. Dean C. Metry at 601 25th Street, 5th Floor Courtroom, Galveston, Texas 77550.
Jan Emig, Paralegal Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Program, (409) 765-1300.
Any or all of the following shall be considered during the prehearing conference:
(1) Petitions for leave to intervene;
(2) Motions, including motions for consolidation of proceedings and for certification of class actions;
(3) Identification, simplification and clarification of the issues;
(4) Necessity or desirability of amending the pleadings;
(5) Stipulations and admissions of fact and of the content and authenticity of documents;
(6) Oppositions to notices of depositions;
(7) Motions for protective orders to limit or modify discovery;
(8) Issuance of subpoenas to compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of documents;
(9) Limitation of the number of witnesses, particularly to avoid duplicate expert witnesses;
(10) Matters of which official notice should be taken and matters which may be resolved by reliance upon the laws administered by the Commission or upon the Commission's substantive standards, regulations, and consumer product safety rules;
(11) Disclosure of the names of witnesses and of documents or other physical exhibits which are intended to be introduced into evidence;
(12) Consideration of offers of settlement;
(13) Establishment of a schedule for the exchange of final witness lists, prepared testimony and documents, and for the date, time and place of the hearing, with due regard to the convenience of the parties; and
(14) Such other matters as may aid in the efficient presentation or disposition of the proceedings.
Telephonic conferencing arrangements to contact the parties will be made by the court. Mary Murphy, Esq. and Jennifer Argabright, Esq., Counsel for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, shall be contacted by a third party conferencing center at (301) 504-7809. David C. Japha, Esq., Counsel for ZEN MAGNETS, LLC (Respondent) shall be contacted by a third party conferencing center at (303) 964-9500. Eric C. Tew, Esq. and Paul M. Laurenza, Esq., Counsel for MAXFIELD AND OBERTON HOLDINGS, LLC (Respondent) shall be contacted by a third party conferencing center at (202) 906-8646.
Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2064.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 3, 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.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before February 4, 2013. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Written comments may be sent to Regina Cano, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Health, Safety and Security (HS-50), 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone at (301) 903-3473, by fax at (301) 903-6961, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Regina Cano, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Health, Safety and Security, HS-50, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone at (301) 903-3473, by fax at (301) 903-6961, or by email at
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5122; (2)
42 U.S.C. 2165; 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5814-5815; 42 U.S.C. 7101
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of a discontinuation of series in the publication of natural gas wellhead prices and request for comments.
EIA is announcing the discontinuation of the natural gas wellhead price series. Beginning in January 2013, EIA will discontinue publishing wellhead prices, and will begin publishing a natural gas spot price at the Henry Hub and an NGL composite spot price at Mont Belvieu. Comments are invited on the proposed change. Please provide a description of your current use of the wellhead price data if applicable.
Comments must be filed by February 4, 2013. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Comments should be mailed to Jose Villar, EI-24, Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Jose Villar at (
The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 761
EIA requests public comment on the discontinuation of the natural gas wellhead price data in an effort to reduce data and conceptual issues associated with the series.
Historically, the EIA published natural gas wellhead prices on an annual basis by state and on a monthly basis nationally. EIA has defined the wellhead price as the per-unit value at the mouth of the well (i.e., the wellhead price is considered to be the sales price obtainable from a third party in an arm's length transaction). These data appeared in the
EIA will terminate its natural gas wellhead price series in December 2012 in an effort to reduce data quality and conceptual issues associated with the series. The data quality issues associated with the wellhead price series are closely related to the data
Conceptual issues associated with the wellhead price also contribute to the data quality problems. The wellhead price is defined as the per-unit value of natural gas at the mouth of the well. However, in practice, the concept of the wellhead price is problematic as a result of the complexities of the long-term and short-term transactions that occur between natural gas producers, processors, marketers, and consumers along the natural gas value chain, as well as to the heterogeneity of natural gas production at the wellhead. The differing quality and thermal content of natural gas at the wellhead makes comparison of prices resulting from transactions across differing regions difficult because it is often unclear whether the gas in a given transaction contains marketable hydrocarbon liquids or unmarketable nonhydrocarbon gases. Natural gas production and revenue data supplied by the states is not sufficiently detailed for making these kinds of distinctions.
As an alternative upstream price, EIA has explored using spot or bidweek prices from established hubs, such as prices for natural gas at the Henry Hub in Louisiana and the prices of selected NGLs at the Mont Belvieu location in Texas. Natural gas spot price information could resolve some of the issues associated with obtaining upstream wellhead prices for natural gas because these prices result from transactions for pipeline quality gas, which is a well-defined, uniform commodity. In theory, a wellhead price could be derived from nearby spot prices, assuming that transportation, processing, and related costs are known or knowable. However, obtaining this kind of information about the natural gas value chain leading to the market hub would likely be burdensome, and EIA currently has no plans to undertake such an analysis. As a result, EIA has begun to publish natural gas spot prices at the Henry Hub and a composite NGL price, excluding liquids produced at crude oil refineries, at the Mont Belvieu market location.
Historically, EIA has estimated preliminary values for the monthly U.S. natural gas wellhead price using a time-series econometric model, which incorporates data from historical wellhead prices, the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex) futures final settlement price for near-month delivery at the Henry Hub, and reported spot market prices at four major trading hubs: Carthage, Texas; Katy, Texas; Waha, Texas; and El Paso non-Bondad, New Mexico (see
EIA proposes discontinuation of the wellhead price series because wellhead price data is not readily available and spot price information can provide a reasonable substitute. Further, obtaining wellhead price information would require a comprehensive study that could prove costly and burdensome to the public and seems impractical given current resource constraints. Absent a source of wellhead price information, EIA cannot objectively verify its model-based wellhead price estimates of the national average wellhead price. Finally, natural gas spot and bidweek prices, in conjunction with NGL spot prices, provide a reasonable proxy for upstream natural gas prices.
In September 2012, EIA began publishing the Henry Hub natural gas spot price and a Mont Belvieu NGL composite spot price in the
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified at 15 U.S.C. 772(b).
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of 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 rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Georgia's request to revise certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective December 4, 2012.
Evi Huffer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1697,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On April 16, 2012, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR) submitted an application titled “Network Discharge Monitoring Report (NetDMR)” electronic document receiving system for revision of its EPA-authorized programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed GA DNR's request to revise its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Georgia's request for revision to its 40 CFR part 123- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State Program Requirements and part 403—General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution EPA-authorized programs for electronic reporting of information submitted under 40 CFR parts 122 and 403 is being published in the
GA DNR was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.
Office of Information Collection.
Notice of open meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank).
Friday, December 14, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Export-Import Bank in Room 326, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571.
The Advisory Committee was established November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.
Agenda items include a briefing for new 2013 Advisory Committee members regarding bank programs (including programs that support textile exports) as well as competitiveness and ethics overview.
The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to December 14, 2012, Richard Thelen, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3515 or TDD (202) 565-3377.
For further information, contact Richard Thelen, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3515.
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
The purpose of the meetings is to discuss issues related to:
Any interested person may attend the meetings as an observer. Board discussion and reviews are open to the public. GAO Building security requires advance notice of your attendance. Please notify FASAB of your planned attendance by calling 202-512-7350 at least one day prior to the respective meeting.
Wendy Payne, Executive Director, at (202) 512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 19, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 28, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces the appointment of members to the AHRQ Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB). This action is being taken in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), which requires notice of appointment of members to performance review boards to be published in the
Members of the PRB are appointed in a manner that will ensure consistency, stability and objectivity in the SES performance appraisals. The function of the PRB is to make recommendations to the Director, AHRQ, relating to the performance of senior executives in the Agency.
The following persons will serve on the AHRQ SES Performance Review Board:
For further information about the AHRQ Performance Review Board, contact Ms. Alison Reinheimer, Office of Performance, Accountability, Resources, and Technology, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Suite 4010, Rockville, Maryland 20850.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Formative Research and Tool Development—(OMB # 0920-0840, Exp. 1/31/2013)—Revision—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention request approval for a revision and a 3 year approval for the previously approved Formative Research and Tool Development. This information collection request has been revised to include one additional type of formative research information collection activity, additional detail regarding the previously approved categories of formative research, and instrument testing for data collection activities used to inform many aspects of surveillance, communications, health promotion, and research project development for NCHHSTP's 4 priority diseases (HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases/infections (STD/STI), viral hepatitis, and tuberculosis elimination. Formative research is the basis for developing effective strategies including communication channels, for influencing behavior change. It helps researchers identify and understand the characteristics—interests, behaviors and needs—of target populations that influence their decisions and actions.
Formative research is integral in developing programs as well as improving existing and ongoing programs. Formative research also looks at the community in which a public health intervention is being or will be implemented and helps the project staff understand the interests, attributes and needs of different populations and persons in that community. Formative research is research that occurs before a program is designed and implemented, or while a program is being conducted.
Formative research is an integral part of developing programs or adapting programs that deal with the complexity of behaviors, social context, cultural identities, and health care that underlie the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STDs, and TB in the U.S.
CDC conducts formative research to develop public-sensitive communication messages and user friendly tools prior to developing or recommending interventions, or care. Sometimes these studies are entirely behavioral but most often they are cycles of interviews and focus groups designed to inform the development of a product.
Products from these formative research studies will be used for prevention of HIV/AIDS, Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI), viral Hepatitis, and Tuberculosis. Findings from these studies may also be presented as evidence to disease-specific National Advisory Committees, to support revisions to recommended prevention and intervention methods, as well as new recommendations.
Much of CDC's health communication takes place within campaigns that have fairly lengthy planning periods—timeframes that accommodate the standard Federal process for approving data collections. Short term qualitative interviewing and cognitive research techniques have previously proven invaluable in the development of scientifically valid and population-appropriate methods, interventions, and instruments.
This request includes studies investigating the utility and acceptability of proposed sampling and recruitment methods, intervention contents and delivery, questionnaire domains, individual questions, and interactions with project staff or electronic data collection equipment. These activities will also provide information about how respondents answer questions and ways in which question response bias and error can be reduced.
This request also includes collection of information from public health programs to assess needs related to initiation of a new program activity or expansion or changes in scope or implementation of existing program activities to adapt them to current needs. The information collected will be used to advise programs and provide capacity-building assistance tailored to identified needs.
Overall, these development activities are intended to provide information that will increase the success of the surveillance or research projects through increasing response rates and decreasing response error, thereby decreasing future data collection burden to the public. The studies that will be covered under this request will include one or more of the following investigational modalities: (1) structured and qualitative interviewing for surveillance, research, interventions and material development, (2) cognitive interviewing for development of specific data collection instruments, (3) methodological research (4) usability testing of technology-based instruments and materials, (5) field testing of new methodologies and materials, (6) investigation of mental models for health decision-making, to inform health communication messages, and (7) organizational needs assessment to support development of capacity. Respondents who will participate in individual and group interviews (qualitative, cognitive, and computer assisted development activities) are selected purposively from those who respond to recruitment advertisements.
In addition to utilizing advertisements for recruitment, respondents who will participate in research on survey methods may be selected purposively or systematically from within an ongoing surveillance or research project. Participation of respondents is voluntary. The total estimated burden is 55820 hours.
There is no cost to participants other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Field Evaluation of Prototype Kneel-assist Devices in Low-seam Mining (0920-0843, Expiration 1/31/2013)—Extension—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
NIOSH, under Public Law 91-596, Sections 20 and 22 (Section 20-22, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) has the responsibility to conduct research relating to innovative methods, techniques, and approaches dealing with occupational safety and health problems.
According to the Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) injury database, 227 knee injuries were reported in underground coal mining in 2007. With data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), it can be estimated that the financial burden of knee injuries was nearly three million dollars in 2007.
Typically, mine workers utilize kneepads to better distribute the pressures at the knee. The effectiveness of these kneepads was only recently investigated in a study by NIOSH that has not yet been published. The results of this study demonstrated that kneepads do decrease the maximum stress applied to the knee albeit not drastically. Additionally, the average pressure across the knee remains similar to the case where subjects wore no kneepads at all. Thus, the injury data and the results of this study suggest the need for the improved design of kneel-assist devices such as kneepads. NIOSH is currently undertaking the task of designing more effective kneel-assist devices such as a kneepad and a padded support worn at the ankle where mine workers can comfortably rest their body weight.
These devices must also be field tested to verify they do not result in body discomfort or inadvertent accidents. It is also important to determine how usable and durable these devices are in the harsh mining environment. In order to quantitatively demonstrate that these prototype devices are superior to their predecessors, mine workers using these prototypes must be interviewed. Their feedback will identify any necessary changes to the design of the devices such that NIOSH can ensure the prototypes will be well-accepted by the mining community.
To collect this type of information, a field study must be conducted where kneel-assist devices currently used in the mining industry (i.e. kneepads) are compared to the new prototype designs. The study suggested here would take approximately 13 months.
Phase I of this study will evaluate the prototype kneel-assist device by mine workers after being used for one month. Iterative changes will be made to the design based on the feedback obtained during Phase I. Data will be collected via interviews with individual mine workers and through a focus group where all mine workers come together to express their opinions about the devices. If the prototype kneel-assist devices do not appear to be successful, the data collected will be used to adequately redesign them and the above described process will begin again. If the prototype kneel-assist devices appear to be successful, Phase II of the study will commence.
Once Phase II of study is ready to commence, cooperating mines will be identified. Every month, the section foreman at the cooperating mines will be asked to supply some information regarding the current mine environment.
Initially, the mine workers will be given a control kneel-assist device. Currently, mine workers only utilize kneepads as a kneel-assist device. Therefore, only a control kneepad will be provided. They will then be asked some basic demographics information such as their age and time in the mining industry. Additional data will then be collected at 1, 3, and 6 months after the study commences. The mine workers will be asked to provide their feedback regarding factors such as body part discomfort, usability, durability, and ease of movement with respect to the control kneepad. After evaluating the control kneepad, mine workers will then be given the prototype kneel-assist device that was finalized in Phase I of the study. The same questions that were asked about the control kneepad will again be asked at 1, 3, and 6 months after usage begins of the prototype. Thus, Phase II of the study will last 12 months.
There will be no cost to the respondents other than their time. The total burden is 216.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 and send comments to Ron Otten, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Project (LMBP), OMB Control Number 0920-0848, Expiration 5/31/2013—EXTENSION—Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services (OSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) to collect information from healthcare organizations in order to conduct systemic evidence reviews of laboratory practice effectiveness. The purpose of information collection is to include completed unpublished quality improvementstudies/assessments carried out by healthcare organizations(laboratories, hospitals, clinics) in systematic reviews of practice effectiveness. CDC has been sponsoring the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices initiative to develop newsystematic evidence reviews methods for making evidence-basedrecommendations in laboratory medicine. This initiative supports the CDC's mission of improving laboratory practices. The focus of the Initiative is on pre- and post-analytic laboratory medicine practices that are effective at improving health care quality. While evidence based approaches for decision-making have become standard in healthcare, this has been limited in laboratory medicine. No single-evidence-based model for recommending practices in laboratory medicine exists, although the number of laboratories operating in the United States and the volume of laboratory tests available certainly warrant such a model. The Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative began in October 2006, when CDC convened the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Workgroup (Workgroup), a multidisciplinary panel of experts in several fields including laboratory medicine, clinical medicine, health services research, and health care performance measurement. The Workgroup has been supported by staff at CDC and the Battelle Memorial Institute under contract to CDC. To date, the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) project work has been completed over three phases. During Phase 1 (October 2006-September 2007)of the project, CDC staff developed systematic review methods for conducting evidence reviews using published literature, and completed a proof-of-concept test. Results of an extensive search and review of published literature using the methods for the topic of patient specimen identification indicated that an insufficient quality and number of studies were available for completing systematic evidence reviews of laboratory medicine practice effectiveness for multiple practices, and hence for making evidence-basedrecommendations. These results were considered likely to be generalizable to most potential topic areas of interest.A finding from Phase 1 work was that laboratories would be unlikely to publish quality improvement projects orstudies demonstrating practice effectiveness in the peer reviewed literature, but that they routinely
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 and send comments to Ron Otten, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have a practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
School Dismissal Monitoring System (OMB Control No. 0920-0849 Exp. 5/31/2013)—Revision—National Center Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In the spring of 2009, the beginning of H1N1 influenza pandemic, illness among school-aged students (K-12) in many states and cities resulted in at least 1,351 school dismissals due to rapidly increasing absenteeism among students or staff. These dismissals impacted at least 824,966 students and 53,217 teachers. During that time, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received numerous daily requests about the overall number of school dismissals nationwide and the number of students and teachers impacted by the school dismissals. CDC and ED recognized the importance of having a mechanism in place to collect this information and gauge the impact of school dismissals during the pandemic. Although an informal process was put in place in conjunction with ED to track school closures, there was no formal monitoring system established. Consequently, CDC and ED launched the School Dismissal Monitoring System to track reports of school closures during public health emergencies and generate accurate, real-time, national summary data daily on the number of closed schools and the number of students and teachers impacted by the dismissals. The system, initially approved under OMB Control No. 0920-0008, Emergency Epidemic Investigations, facilitated CDC's and ED's efforts to track implementation of CDC pandemic guidance, characterized factors associated with differences in morbidity and mortality due to pandemic influenza in the schools and surrounding communities, and described the characteristics of the schools experiencing outbreaks as well as control measures undertaken by those schools. In the fall of 2009, CDC's School Dismissal Monitoring System detected 1,947 school dismissals impacting approximately 623,616 students and 40,521 teachers nationwide. These data were used widely throughout the U.S. Government for situational awareness and specifically at CDC to assess the impact of CDC guidance and community mitigation efforts in response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic.
The purpose of this monitoring system is to generate accurate, real-time, national summary data daily on the number of school dismissals and the number of students and teachers impacted by the dismissals due to public health emergencies. This collection request includes dismissals initiated for infectious disease outbreaks or weather related events when school dismissals are recommended by federal, state or local public health authorities.
1. Determine the scope and extent of school dismissals in the United States during public health emergencies:
a. Prospectively monitor data to identify schools and school districts that have high dismissal rates due to infectious diseases, or that implement pre-emptive school dismissals due to other public health emergencies due to other reasons when recommended by public health officials.
b. Retrospectively review data collected to describe impact school dismissals had on students and teachers
2. Describe the characteristics of schools and school districts with high dismissal rates due to infectious diseases
Respondents are required to identify their respective institutions by providing non-sensitive information, to include the name and zip code of schools and school districts and their dates of closure, as well as reason for the dismissal (due to illness rates among students and staff or pre-emptive to slow the spread of infection). The respondents have the option of providing their position titles, phone number of the institution they represent, and email address. The estimates for burden hours are derived from the 627 total number of reported closures during the fall in 2009. We have multiplied that number by four as an estimate for a calendar year. Respondents are providing this information as public health and education officials and representatives of their agencies and organizations and not as private citizens. The data collection does not involve personally identifiable information and should have no impact on an individual's privacy. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 and send comments to Ron Otten, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs) and Antimicrobial Use in U.S. Acute Care Hospitals—Extension (0920-0852 expiration 5/31/13)—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is a CDC priority. An essential step in reducing the occurrence of HAIs is to estimate accurately the burden of these infections in U.S. hospitals, and to describe the types of HAIs and causative organisms. The scope and magnitude of HAIs in the United States were last directly estimated in the 1970s in which comprehensive data were collected from a sample of 338 hospitals; 5% of hospitalized patients acquired an infection not present at the time of admission. Because of the substantial resources necessary to conduct hospital-wide surveillance in an ongoing manner, most of the more than 4,500 hospitals now reporting to the CDC's current HAI surveillance system, the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN 0920-0666 expiration 1/31/15), focus instead on device-associated and procedure-associated infections in selected patient locations, and do not report data on all types of HAIs occurring hospital-wide. Periodic assessments of the magnitude and types of HAIs occurring in all patient populations within acute care hospitals are needed to inform decisions by local and national policy makers and by hospital infection control personnel regarding appropriate targets and strategies for HAI prevention.
In 2008-2009 in the previous project period, CDC developed a pilot protocol for a HAI point prevalence survey,
An extension of the prevalence survey's existing OMB approval is sought, to allow a repeat HAI and antimicrobial use prevalence survey to be performed in 2014. A repeat survey will allow further refinement of survey methodology and assessment of changes over time in prevalence, HAI distribution, and pathogen distribution. It will also allow for a re-assessment of the burden of antimicrobial use, at a time when antimicrobial stewardship is an area of active engagement in many acute care hospitals. The 2014 survey will be performed in a sample of up to 500 acute care hospitals, drawn from the acute care hospital populations in each of the 10 EIP sites (and including participation from many hospitals that participated in prior phases of the survey). Infection prevention personnel in participating hospitals and EIP site personnel will collect demographic and clinical data from the medical records of a sample of eligible patients in their hospitals on a single day in 2014, to identify CDC-defined HAIs. The surveys will provide data for CDC to make estimates of the prevalence of HAIs across this sample of U.S. hospitals as well as the distribution of infection types and causative organisms. These data can be used to work toward reducing and eliminating healthcare-associated infections—a Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Healthy People 2020 objective (
This survey assumes one respondent per hospital, a median of 75 patients per hospital, and average data collection time of 15 minutes per patient. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden is 9,375 hours.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 and send comments to Kimberly S. Lane, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Emerging Infections Program—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Emerging Infections Programs (EIPs) are population-based centers of excellence established through a network of state health departments collaborating with academic institutions; local health departments; public health and clinical laboratories; infection control professionals; and healthcare providers. EIPs assist in local, state, and national efforts to prevent, control, and monitor the public health impact of infectious diseases. Various parts of the EIP have received separate Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearances (Active Bacterial Core Surveillance [ABCs]—OMB number 0920-0802 and All Age Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance—OMB number 0920-0852); however this request seeks to have these core EIP activities under one clearance.
Activities of the EIPs fall into the following general categories: (1) Active surveillance; (2) applied public health epidemiologic and laboratory activities; (3) implementation and evaluation of pilot prevention/intervention projects; and (4) flexible response to public health emergencies. Activities of the
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 and send comments to Ron Otten, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Application for Training (0920-0017, Expiration 03/31/2013)—Revision—Scientific Education and Professional Development Program Office (SEPDPO), Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (OSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC offers public health training activities to professionals worldwide. Employees of hospitals, universities, medical centers, laboratories, State and Federal agencies, and State and local health departments apply for training to learn up-to-date public health practices. CDC's training activities include laboratory training, classroom study, online training, and distance learning. CDC uses two training application forms, the Training and Continuing Education Online New Participant Registration Form and the National Laboratory Training Network Registration Form, to collect information necessary to manage and conduct training pertinent to the agency's mission.
CDC requests OMB approval to continue to collect information through
CDC is accredited by six different continuing education (CE) organizations to award CE: (1) The International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET) to provide Continuing Education Units (CEUs), (2) the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide Continuing Medical Education credits (CME), (3) the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANNC) to provide Continuing Nurse Education credits (CNE), (4) the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing (NCHEC) to award CHES credit, (5) the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) to provide continuing pharmacy credit, and (6) the American Association of Veterinary State Boards to award Registry of Approved Continuing Education (RACE) credit. The accrediting organizations require a method of tracking participants who complete an educational activity and demographic data allows CDC to do so. Also, several of the organizations require a permanent record that includes the participant's name, address, and phone number, to facilitate retrieval of historical information about when a participant completed a course or several courses during a time period. This information provides the basis for a transcript or for determining whether a person is enrolled in more than one course. CDC uses the email address to verify the participant's electronic request for transcripts, verify course certificates, and send confirmation that a participant is registered for a course.
Tracking course attendance and meeting accrediting organizations' standards for reporting, require uniform standardized training application forms. The standardized data these forms request for laboratory training, classroom study, online training, and distance learning are not requested elsewhere. In other words, these forms do not duplicate requests for information from participants. Data are collected only once per course or once per new registration. The annual burden table has been updated to reflect an increase in distance learning to 6,792 burden hours; that is an average burden of 5 minutes per respondent. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
Based upon HHS' experience in the MLR data collection and evaluation process, HHS is updating its annual burden hour estimates to reflect the actual numbers of submissions, rebates and rebate notices. In addition, the notice requirement for issuers that do not owe rebates applied only to the 2011 reporting year, and does not apply to 2012 and subsequent MLR reporting years.
We have simplified the format of the reporting form and the method by which issuers submit their data. For the 2012 MLR reporting year, when submitting data to CMS, issuers will have the option to use either a Microsoft Excel (.xls) or a Comma Separated Value (.csv) file format. This will allow issuers flexibility and reduce the burden in submitting the MLR report. The new method will no longer include pre-calculated fields which will reduce the burden as well as the possibility of error.
The 2012 MLR Reporting Form and instructions also reflect changes for the 2012 reporting year and beyond that are set forth in the December 2011 Final Rule as to whether certain already reported expenditures such as ICD-10 conversion costs are taken into account in calculating an issuer's MLR.
HHS has created and published a host of electronic training tools to assist issuers with the preparation and submission of MLR data forms and Rebate calculations. Consequently the agency is reducing its current burden hours from 354,570 to 311,302.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web Site address at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by February 4, 2013:
1.
2.
Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Investigational New Drug Applications for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Drugs.” The guidance is intended to assist manufacturers of PET drugs in submitting investigational new drug applications (INDs).
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this 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. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Kyong (Kaye) Kang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2352, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2050.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Investigational New Drug Applications for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Drugs.” The guidance summarizes the IND process for PET drugs, makes recommendations for how to submit an IND, provides advice on expanded access options for investigational PET drugs, and describes the process for requesting permission to charge for an investigational PET drug.
A draft guidance of the same title was announced in the
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 the submission of INDs for PET drugs. 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
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). INDs and requests to charge for a drug under an IND are submitted to FDA under part 312 (21 CFR part 312). New drug applications and abbreviated new drug applications are submitted to FDA under §§ 314.50 and 314.94 (21 CFR 314.50 and 314.94). The collections of information in part 312 and in §§ 314.50 and 314.94 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “FDA Oversight of PET Drug Products—Questions and Answers.” This guidance provides questions and answers that address nearly all aspects of the FDA approval and surveillance processes, including application submission, review, compliance with good manufacturing practices, inspections, registration and listing, and user fees.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this 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. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Elizabeth Giaquinto,Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6164, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,301-796-3416.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “FDA Oversight of PET Drug Products—Questions and Answers.” In 1997, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (the Modernization Act) (Public Law 105-115). Section 121 of the Modernization Act directed FDA to establish appropriate approval procedures and current good manufacturing practices (CGMP) for PET drugs. The procedures were finalized and an implementation timeline was instituted on December 10, 2009, when FDA published regulations that described the minimum CGMP standards that each PET drug manufacturer is to follow during the production of a PET drug (see part 212 (21 CFR part 212)).
Recognizing that many PET drug producers are unfamiliar with the drug approval process, FDA issued several guidance documents specific to PET drug producers
A draft guidance of the same title was announced in the
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 the FDA oversight of PET drugs. 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
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 21 CFR part 314 were approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0338; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 were approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in part 212 were approved under OMB control number 0910-0667; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 210 and 211 were approved under 0910-0139; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 207 were approved under OMB control number 0910-0045. The guidance also refers to collections of information associated with submitting Form FDA 3397 (Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet), approved under OMB control number 0910-0297.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public hearing; request for comments; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a document that appeared in the
Lee Lemley, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20903, 301-796-3441, Fax: 301-847-8753, email:
In the
1. On page 69863, in the second column, under
2. On page 69863, in the third column, under
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of nonvoting industry representatives to serve on the Device Good Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee (DGMPAC) in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health notify FDA in writing. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies effective with this notice.
Any industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting members to represent industry interests must send a letter stating that interest to FDA by January 3, 2013, for the vacancies listed in this notice. Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA by January 3, 2013.
All letters of interest and nominations should be submitted in writing to Margaret J. Ames (see
Margaret J. Ames,Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5234, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5960,
Section 520 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360j), as amended, provides that the DGMPAC shall be composed of two representatives of interests of the device manufacturing industry. The Agency is requesting nominations for nonvoting industry representatives on the DGMPAC.
Review proposed regulations issuance regarding good manufacturing practices governing the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for manufacture, packaging, storage, installation, and servicing of devices, and make recommendations regarding the feasibility and reasonableness of those proposed regulations. The committee also reviews and makes recommendations on proposed guidelines developed to assist the medical device industry in meeting the good manufacturing practice requirements, and provides advice with regard to any petition submitted by a manufacturer for an exemption or variance from good manufacturing practice regulations.
Persons nominated for the DGMPAC should possess appropriate qualifications to understand and contribute to the committee's work as described in the committee's function.
Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see
Individuals may self nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA contact person (see
FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees, and therefore encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups. Specifically, in this document, nominations for nonvoting representatives of industry interests are encouraged from device manufacturing industry.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14 relating to advisory committees.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Section 1926 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 300x-26] stipulates that funding Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SABG) agreements for alcohol and drug abuse programs for fiscal year 1994 and subsequent fiscal years require states to have in effect a law providing that it is unlawful for any manufacturer, retailer, or distributor of tobacco products to sell or distribute any such product to any individual under the age of 18. This section further requires that states conduct annual, random, unannounced inspections to ensure compliance with the law; that the state submit annually a report describing the results of the inspections, the activities carried out by the state to enforce the required law, the success the state has achieved in reducing the availability of tobacco products to individuals under the age of 18, and the strategies to be utilized by the state for enforcing such law during the fiscal year for which the grant is sought.
Before making an award to a State under the SABG, the Secretary must make a determination that the state has maintained compliance with these requirements. If a determination is made that the state is not in compliance, penalties shall be applied. Penalties ranged from 10 percent of the Block Grant in applicable year 1 (FFY 1997 SABG Applications) to 40 percent in applicable year 4 (FFY 2000 SABG Applications) and subsequent years. Respondents include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Regulations that implement this legislation are at 45 CFR 96.130, are approved by OMB under control number 0930-0163, and require that each state submit an annual Synar report to the Secretary describing their progress in complying with section 1926 of the PHS Act. The Synar report, due December 31 following the fiscal year for which the state is reporting, describes the results of the inspections and the activities carried out by the state to enforce the required law; the success the state has achieved in reducing the availability of tobacco products to individuals under the age of 18; and the strategies to be utilized by the state for enforcing such law during the fiscal year for which the grant is sought. SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention will request OMB approval of revisions to the current report format associated with Section 1926 (42 U.S.C. 300x-26). The report format is not changing significantly. Any changes in either formatting or content are being made to simplify the reporting process for the states and to clarify the information as the states report it; both outcomes will facilitate consistent, credible, and efficient monitoring of Synar compliance across the states. All of the information required in the new report format is already being collected by the states. Specific changes are listed below:
To decrease the need for supplemental questions and reporting,
In Section I (Compliance Progress), the following clarification changes are being made with respect to the Annual Synar Report:
In Section II (Intended Use), the following clarification change is being made:
In Appendix B (Synar Survey Sampling Methodology), the following clarification is being made:
In Appendix C (Synar Survey Inspection Protocol), the following change is being made:
The content of the Synar Report has changed little. The content changes that have been made address the need to (1) clarify the intent of information requested via the addition of clarifying questions, (2) reduce the need for Government Project Officers to ask additional questions to supplement the originally submitted Report. These additions and changes are essential to SAMHSA's ability to adequately assess state and jurisdictional compliance with the Synar regulation.
In Section I (Compliance Progress), the following changes are being made with respect to the Annual Synar Report:
In Appendix B (Synar Survey Sampling Methodology), the following changes are being made:
In Appendix C (Synar Survey Inspection Protocol), the following change is being made:
There are no changes to Forms 1-5 or Appendix D.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 2-1057, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Dated: November 14, 2012.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-3354-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective November 8, 2012.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Connecticut (FEMA-3353-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective November 8, 2012.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration 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 the incident period for this emergency is closed effective November 8, 2012.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-3359-EM), dated October 29, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective November 1, 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.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective November 8, 2012.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of New York (FEMA-3351-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effectiveNovember 8, 2012.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New 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 the incident period for this disaster is closed effective November 8, 2012.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Connecticut (FEMA-4087-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Connecticut 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.
Fairfield, Middlesex, New Haven, and New London Counties and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and Mohegan Tribal Nation located within New London County for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Public Assistance [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance).
Litchfield, Tolland, and Windham Counties for Public Assistance, including direct federal assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Connecticut (FEMA-4087-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective November 8, 2012.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4086-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective November 8, 2012.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maryland (FEMA-4091-DR), dated November 20, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 20, 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 Maryland resulting from Hurricane Sandy during the period of October 26 to November 4, 2012, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael J. Lapinski, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Maryland have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Allegany, Calvert, Caroline, Charles, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Howard, Kent, Queen Anne's, Somerset, St. Mary's, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties and the Independent City of Baltimore for Public Assistance.
All counties and the Independent City of Baltimore within the State of Maryland are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Department of the Interior.
Notice of Secretary's Order 3324.
Secretary's Order 3324 revises and supersedes the Order of the Secretary of the Interior, dated October 28, 1986 (51 FR 39425), and corrected on August 26, 1987 (52 FR 32171), and provides procedures and guidelines for more orderly co-development of oil and gas and potash deposits owned by the United States within the Designated Potash Area through safe, concurrent operations.