Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety 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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a new regulatory guide (RG) 4.22, “Decommissioning Planning During Operations.” The guide describes a method that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use by holders of licenses in complying with the NRC's Decommissioning Planning Rule (DPR) (76 FR 35512; June 17, 2011). The DPR went into effect on December 17, 2012, and is intended to minimize the likelihood of new “legacy sites,” which are NRC-licensed facilities with insufficient resources to complete decommissioning activities and termination of a license at the end of operations.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0286 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may submit access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using the following methods:
•
•
•
Edward O'Donnell, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-251-7455, email:
The NRC is issuing a new guide in the NRC's Regulatory Guide series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information such as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
RG 4.22 describes a method that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use by holders of licenses in complying with the DPR. On December 13, 2011 (76 FR 77431), the NRC issued Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-4014, “Decommissioning Planning During Operations,” in the
The statement of considerations for the DPR discussed that rule's compliance with applicable backfitting provisions (76 FR 35511, at 35562-63). This regulatory guide presents the NRC staff's first guidance addressing compliance with § 20.1501(a) and (b) of Title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice.
Final rule.
On July 9, 2012, the President signed into law the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 (SDAPA). SDAPA amends the Controlled Substances Act by placing 26 substances in Schedule I. DEA is publishing this rule to establish drug codes for these 26 substances, and to make technical and conforming amendments in accordance with SDAPA.
John W. Partridge, Executive Assistant, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone (202) 307-7165.
DEA administers, implements, and enforces Titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, often referred to as the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 801-971), as amended (hereinafter, “CSA”). The implementing regulations for these statutes are found in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1300 to 1321. Under the CSA, controlled substances are classified in one of five schedules based upon their potential for abuse, their currently accepted medical use, the lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and the degree of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The list of legislatively scheduled controlled substances is found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c) and the current list of scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308. These initial schedules may be modified either by legislation or by rulemaking.
On July 9, 2012, the SDAPA of 2012, Public Law 112-144, Title XI, Subtitle D, became effective. SDAPA amended the CSA by legislatively placing “cannabimimetic agents”
At the time SDAPA became effective on July 9, 2012, a total of 8 substances were covered by temporary scheduling final orders: 5 synthetic cannabinoids (JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and CP-47,497 C8 homologue)
In addition to establishing drug codes for these 26 substances,
An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from certain provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), including notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment, if it is determined to be unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest. This rule merely establishes drug codes for the 26 substances placed in Schedule I by SDAPA, and makes several technical and conforming amendments in accordance with SDAPA. Because DEA has no discretion with respect to these changes, publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and soliciting public comment are unnecessary. In addition, because the placement of these 26 substances in Schedule I has already been in effect since July 9, 2012, DEA finds good cause exists to make this rule effective immediately upon publication.
This rule, establishing drug codes for the 26 substances placed in Schedule I by SDAPA, and making technical and conforming amendments in accordance with SDAPA has been developed in accordance with the principles of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
This rulemaking does not preempt or modify any provision of State law, impose enforcement responsibilities on any State, or diminish the power of any State to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.
This rule is required by statute, will not have tribal implications, and will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments.
The Deputy Administrator hereby certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), has reviewed this regulation, and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not involve a collection of information within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $136,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 2 U.S.C. 1532.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, a major increase in cost or prices, or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and export markets. However, DEA has submitted a copy of this rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1308 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(g)
(h) * * *
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations that provide guidance on the tax treatment of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium. This document also contains temporary regulations that provide guidance on the tax treatment of a debt instrument with a bond premium carryforward in the holder's final accrual period, including a Treasury bill acquired at a premium. The regulations in this document provide guidance to holders of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and other debt instruments. The text of the temporary regulations in this document also serves as the text of the proposed regulations (REG-140437-12) set forth in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the
William E. Blanchard, (202) 622-3900 (not a toll-free number).
On December 5, 2011, temporary regulations (TD 9561) relating to the federal income tax treatment of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium were published in the
The proposed regulations are adopted without substantive change by this Treasury decision, and the corresponding temporary regulations are removed.
The following is a general explanation of the provisions in the final regulations, which are the same as the provisions in the temporary regulations. However, the provisions that were in the temporary regulations are now contained in newly designated paragraphs (g)(2) and (h)(2) of § 1.1275-7 of the final regulations.
TIPS are securities issued by the Department of the Treasury. The principal amount of a TIPS is adjusted for any inflation or deflation that occurs over the term of the security. The rules for the taxation of inflation-indexed debt instruments, including TIPS, are contained in § 1.1275-7 of the Income Tax Regulations.
Under § 1.1275-7(d)(2)(i), the coupon bond method described in § 1.1275-7(d) is not available with respect to inflation-indexed debt instruments that are issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium (that is, an amount greater than .0025 times the stated principal amount of the security times the number of complete years to the security's maturity). Prior to 2011, TIPS had not been issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium, and the coupon bond method had applied to TIPS rather than the more complex discount bond method described in § 1.1275-7(e).
In 2011, the Treasury Department anticipated that TIPS might be issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium. As a result, in Notice 2011-21 (2011-19 IRB 761), to provide a more uniform method for the federal income taxation of TIPS, the Treasury Department and the IRS announced that regulations would be issued to provide that taxpayers must use the coupon bond method described in § 1.1275-7(d) for TIPS issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium. As a result, the discount bond method described in § 1.1275-7(e) would not apply to TIPS issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium. Notice 2011-21 provided that the regulations would be effective for TIPS issued on or after April 8, 2011. On December 5, 2011, the Treasury Department and the IRS published the temporary regulations in the
Under the final regulations, a taxpayer must use the coupon bond method described in § 1.1275-7(d) for a TIPS that is issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium. The final regulations include the example from the temporary regulations illustrating how to apply the coupon bond method to a TIPS issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium and a negative yield. As stated in Notice 2011-21, the final regulations apply to TIPS issued on or after April 8, 2011.
During the consideration of the final regulations relating to TIPS issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium, the Treasury Department and the IRS received questions about the holder's treatment of a taxable zero coupon debt instrument, including a Treasury bill, acquired at a premium and a negative yield. In this situation, as described in more detail below, under §§ 1.171-2 and 1.1016-5(b) of the current regulations, a holder that elected to amortize the bond premium generally would have a capital loss upon the sale, retirement, or other disposition of the debt instrument rather than an ordinary deduction under section 171(a)(1) for all or a portion of the bond premium. This situation, which has arisen as a result of recent market conditions, was not contemplated when the current regulations were adopted in 1997.
Under section 171 and § 1.171-2 of the current regulations, an electing holder amortizes bond premium by offsetting the qualified stated interest (as
In the case of a zero coupon debt instrument, including a Treasury bill, there is no qualified stated interest. Therefore, under § 1.171-2, the amount of bond premium allocable to an accrual period will always exceed the qualified stated interest allocable to the accrual period (zero) and, because there will be no bond premium deductions in any prior accrual periods, such amount will be carried forward to the next accrual period. As a result, upon the sale, retirement, or other disposition of the debt instrument, there will be a bond premium carryforward determined as of the end of the holder's final accrual period in an amount equal to the total amount of bond premium allocable to the holder's final accrual period, which includes the bond premium allocable by the holder to each prior accrual period. In this situation, because there is no qualified stated interest to offset the bond premium carryforward and because the holder's basis in the bond has not been reduced, under the current regulations, the holder would have a capital loss in an amount at least equal to the bond premium carryforward. The Treasury Department and the IRS, however, believe that the amount of the bond premium carryforward in this situation should be treated as a bond premium deduction under section 171(a)(1) rather than as a capital loss for the holder's taxable year in which the sale, retirement, or other disposition occurs.
In order to provide immediate guidance to investors, the temporary regulations in this document and the notice of proposed rulemaking that cross-references these temporary regulations (REG-140437-12) address this issue by adding a specific rule for the treatment of a bond premium carryforward determined as of the end of the holder's final accrual period for any taxable bond for which the holder has elected to amortize bond premium. Thus, for example, under § 1.171-2T(a)(4)(i)(C), an electing holder that purchases a taxable zero coupon debt instrument at a premium deducts all or a portion of the premium under section 171(a)(1) when the instrument is sold, retired, or otherwise disposed of rather than as a capital loss.
In addition, because the rules in § 1.171-3 for inflation-indexed debt instruments, including TIPS, generally treat a bond premium carryforward as a deflation adjustment, § 1.171-3 is amended to apply the rule in § 1.171-2T(a)(4)(i)(C)(
Section 1.171-2T(a)(4)(i)(C)(
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. No comments were received. In addition, pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the temporary regulations in this document have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.
The principal author of these regulations is William E. Blanchard, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.171-2T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 171(e). * * *
(a)(1) through (a)(4)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.171-2(a)(1) through (a)(4)(i)(B).
(C)
(
(ii) through (c) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.171-2(a)(4)(ii) through (c).
(d)
(b) * * * However, the rules in § 1.171-2T(a)(4)(i)(C) apply to any remaining deflation adjustment attributable to bond premium as of the end of the holder's accrual period in which the bond is sold, retired, or otherwise disposed of. * * *
(b) * * *
(g) TIPS.
(1) Reopenings.
(2) TIPS issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium.
(h) Effective/applicability dates.
(1) In general.
(2) TIPS issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * * For example, this section applies to Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS).
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * * See paragraph (g)(2) of this section, however, for the treatment of TIPS issued with more than a de minimis amount of premium.
(g)
(2)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(h)
(2)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation schedule of the S.R. 74 Bridge, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the 2013 Quintiles Wrightsville Beach Full and Half Marathon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position during the race.
This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. through 10 a.m. on Sunday, March 17, 2013.
The docket for this temporary deviation, USCG-2012-1070, is available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Kashanda Booker, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District; telephone 757-398-6227, email
The Quintiles Wrightsville Beach Full and Half Marathon committee on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule for the S.R. 74 Bascule Drawbridge across the AIWW mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC. The requested deviation will accommodate the 2013 Quintiles Wrightsville Beach Full and Half Marathon scheduled for Sunday, March 17, 2013. To facilitate this event, the draw of the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 5 a.m. until 10 a.m. to allow race participants to cross during the scheduled event.
The current operating schedule for the bridge is set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(4). The regulation requires the bridge to open on signal for vessels at all times except that from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. the bridge shall open on the hour; every third and fourth Saturday in September the bridge shall remain closed from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m.; and the last Saturday of October or the first or second Saturday of November the bridge shall remain closed from 7 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. The bascule drawbridge has a vertical clearance of 20 feet above mean high water (MHW) in the closed position. Vessels that can pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time.
Since the race is an annual event, local waterway users should be familiar with the closure. To ensure that waterway users are aware of the closure, the Coast Guard will issue a Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners to allow mariners to schedule their transits accordingly. There are no alternate routes available to vessels. Most waterway traffic consists of recreational boats with a few barges and tugs during the daytime. The bridge is able to open for emergencies.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Hampton Harbor in the vicinity of Hampton Harbor Bridge due to a partially submerged dredge excavator obstructing the channel. This temporary final rule is necessary to protect vessels transiting the area from the obstruction. This zone is intended to prohibit vessels from coming within 100 yards of point 42 53′763″ N, 070 48′986″ W until the obstruction is cleared. Persons or vessels may not enter into this zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Northern New England.
This rule is effective in the CFR on January 4, 2013 until January 31, 2013. This rule is effective with actual notice for purposes of enforcement on November 30, 2012. This rule will remain in effect through January 31, 2013.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2012-1055]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Ensign Elizabeth V. Morris, Waterways Management Division at Coast Guard Sector Northern New England, telephone 207-741-0398, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this 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
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 temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define safety zones.
The safety zone is being issued to ensure the safety of persons and vessels in Hampton Harbor within the proximity of the partially submerged excavator.
On the evening of November 29, 2012, a dredging barge was working in the vicinity of the Hampton Harbor Bridge. During operations, a cable snapped and the excavator on board the barge fell into the water within the channel. The excavator is now partially submerged near the bridge. This safety zone is required to protect persons and vessels from the safety hazards associated with this obstruction to the channel. This safety zone will encompass all waters within a 100 yard radius of center point 42 53′763″ N, 070 48′986″ W and will be effective immediately and until January 31, 2013.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of 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 Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The economic effect of this rule will not be significant for the following reasons: The safety zone will be of limited duration. Vessels may be authorized to transit the zone with permission of the Captain of the Port, Sector Northern New England. Additionally, maritime advisories will be broadcast during the duration of the enforcement period.
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 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.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone. However, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to the time of year in which this rule takes place and advance notifications will be made to the local community by marine information broadcasts.
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. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
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 Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
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 determined 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 is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. This rule involves creation of a temporary safety zone for a limited period of time. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and 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. 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(2) This temporary safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene patrol personnel. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives.
(3) Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the Safety Zone by contacting the Captain of the Port or the Captain of the Port's on-scene representative on VHF-16 or via phone at 207-767-0303.
(4) The “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, or onboard a local or state agency vessel that is authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard. Additionally, the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
(5) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency) proposes to implement two civil monetary penalty provisions. First, RHS proposes to amend its regulations to create a new section, for imposing civil monetary penalties under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 1490s (section 543 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (Act)) (Housing Act CMP). Second, RHS proposes to adopt the USDA civil monetary penalty provisions for the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA) in a revision to an existing section (PFCRA CMP). The new section will include an amended version of the existing Housing Act CMP provision together with additional language providing procedural guidance.
Written comments must be received on or before February 4, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments to this proposed rule by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All written comments will be available for public inspection during regular work hours at the 300 7th Street SW., 7th Floor, address listed above.
Stephanie White, Director, Multi-Family Housing Portfolio Management Division, Rural Housing Service, Stop 0782, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0782, Telephone: 202-720-1615.
This proposed rule has been determined to be non-significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
The Housing Act CMP provision is authorized under section 543(b) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1490s(b)). The PFCRA is codified at 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812. PFCRA establishes an administrative remedy against any person who makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim or written statement to certain federal agencies, such as the United States Department of Agriculture.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G. RHS has determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
This proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Under Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agency has determined and certified by signature on this document that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since this rulemaking action does not involve a new or expanded program nor does it require any more action on the part of a small business than required of a large entity.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. This rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local Governments; therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988. In accordance with this rule: (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, all State and local laws that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule except as specifically prescribed in the rule; and (3) administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division of the Department of Agriculture (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before bringing suit in court that challenges action taken under this rule.
Title II of the UMRA, Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal Governments and on the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Federal Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and Final Rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires a Federal Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or for the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The revisions in this rulemaking for 7 CFR part 3560 are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act package with the assigned OMB control number of 0575-0189. No changes are being proposed that would impact that package.
RHS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services and for other purposes.
The programs affected by this regulation are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Section 514 program and Section 516 program (10.405); Section 515 program (10.415); Section 521 (10.427); and Section 542 (10.448).
This executive order imposes requirements on RHS in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. RHS has determined that the proposed rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes. Thus, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If tribal leaders are interested in consulting with RHS on this proposed rule, they are encouraged to contact USDA's Office of Tribal Relations or Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or
These loans and grants are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. RHS conducts intergovernmental consultations for each loan and grant in a manner delineated in 7 CFR part 3015 subpart V.
USDA implemented the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 in regulations at 7 CFR part 1, subpart L. The Agency is proposing to incorporate those regulations in this rule.
Section 543(b) of the Act states that the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, impose a civil monetary penalty against any person, including its owners, officers, directors, general partners, limited partners, or employees, who knowingly and materially violate, or participate in the violation of the Act, or the regulations and agreements used to implement the Act. Such violations include:
(A) Submitting information to the Secretary that is false;
(B) Providing the Secretary with false certifications;
(C) Failing to submit information requested by the Secretary in a timely manner;
(D) Failing to maintain the property subject to loans made or guaranteed under the Act in good repair and condition, as determined by the Secretary;
(E) Failing to provide acceptable management for a project which received a loan made or guaranteed under the Act that is acceptable to the Secretary; or
(F) Failing to comply with the provisions of applicable civil rights statutes and regulations.
In 2004, the Agency included Housing Act CMPs in 7 CFR 3560.461(b) with limited procedural detail. Consequently, the Agency has found Housing Act CMPs to not be an effective remedy. This proposed rule will provide sufficient procedural detail to enable the Agency to utilize Housing Act CMPs while at the same time providing due process protection to program participants. By implementing procedures for Housing Act CMPs, the Agency will be provided an important tool to enforce compliance with relevant statutes, regulations, and loan documents. The Agency's Housing Act CMP amount will be published in 7 CFR part 3, subpart I.
Aged, Loan programs-Agriculture, Loan programs-Housing and Community Development, Low and moderate income housing, Public housing, Rent subsidies.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter XXXV, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1480.
(b)
(2) Proceedings under this section will be in accordance with subpart L of 7 CFR part 1, “Procedures Related to Administrative Hearings under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986.”
(3) The Administrator of the Rural Housing Service, or designee, is authorized to serve as Agency Fraud Claims Officer for the purposes of implementing the requirements of this subsection.
(4) Civil penalties and assessments imposed pursuant to this section are in addition to any other remedies that maybe prescribed by law or imposed under this subpart.
(a) The Agency may impose a civil monetary penalty in accordance with this section against any individual or entity, including its owners, officers, general partners, limited partners, or employees (Respondent(s), who knowingly and materially violate, or participate in the violation of, the provisions of the programs covered by this part or agreements made in furtherance of those programs. “Knowingly” includes having actual knowledge of or acting with deliberate ignorance of or reckless disregard for the prohibitions under this part. Actions covered include, but are not limited to:
(1) Submitting information to the Agency that is false.
(2) Providing the Agency with false certifications.
(3) Failing to submit information requested by the Agency in a timely manner.
(4) Failing to maintain the property subject to loans or grants made under the programs covered by this part in good repair and condition, as determined by the Agency.
(5) Failing to provide management for a project that received a loan or grant made under this part that is acceptable to the Agency. Such failures include, without limitation, failure to provide fiscal management in accordance with Agency regulations including failure to maintain reserve accounts and unauthorized use of fund in such reserve accounts, failure to handle vacancies in accordance with Agency regulations, and failure to handle rent collection in accordance with Agency regulations.
(6) Failing to comply with the provisions of applicable civil rights statutes and regulations.
(b)
(2) In determining the amount of a civil monetary penalty under this section, the Agency must take into consideration:
(i) The gravity of the offense;
(ii) Any history of prior offenses by the Respondent (including offenses occurring prior to the enactment of this section);
(iii) Any injury to tenants;
(iv) Any injury to the public;
(v) Any benefits received by the Respondent as a result of the violation;
(vi) Deterrence of future violations;
(vii) The degree of the Respondent's culpability; and
(viii) The Respondent's ability to pay the penalty, which ability shall be presumed unless raised as an affirmative defense or mitigating factor by the Respondent. The ability to pay is determined based on an assessment of the Respondent's resources available both presently and prospectively from which the Agency could ultimately recover the total award, which may be predicted based on historical evidence.
(3)
(c)
(d)
(1) That the Rural Housing Service is considering seeking a civil money penalty;
(2) The specific violations alleged;
(3) The maximum civil money penalty that may be imposed;
(4) The opportunity to reply in writing to the Agency Official within 30 days after the date of the notice;
(5) That failure to respond with the 30-day period may result in issuance of a complaint under paragraph (f) of this section without consideration of any information that the Respondent may wish to provide;
(6) That upon receipt of the pre-penalty notice, the Respondent is required to preserve and maintain all documents and data, including electronically stored data, within Respondent's possession or control that may relate to the violations alleged in the pre-penalty notice. The Agency shall also preserve such documents or data upon the issuance of the pre-penalty notice;
(7) That any response to the pre-penalty notice shall be in a format prescribed in the pre-penalty notice, and shall address the factors in subsection (a), any arguments opposing the imposition of a civil money penalty, and any affirmative defense or mitigating factor concerning the Respondent's ability to pay the proposed civil money penalty, including documentary evidence to support any of Respondent's arguments or defenses; and.
(8) That if a complaint is issued under § 3560.464(f), the Respondent may request a hearing before an administrative law judge. Proceedings under this section will be in accordance with subpart L of 7 CFR part 1.
(e)
(2) In any case where Respondent seeks to raise ability to pay as an affirmative defense or argument in mitigation, the Respondent shall provide documentary evidence as part of its response.
(f)
(2) If a determination is made to seek a civil money penalty, a complaint shall be served upon the Respondent and simultaneously filed with the USDA Office of the Administrative Law Judges, providing the following:
(i) The factual basis for the decision to seek a penalty;
(ii) The applicable civil money penalty statute;
(iii) The amount of penalty sought;
(iv) The right to submit a response in writing, within 15 days of receipt of the complaint, requesting a hearing on any material fact in the complaint, or on the appropriateness of the penalty sought;
(v) The address to which a response must be sent;
(vi) That the failure to submit a response may result in the imposition of the penalty in the amount sought.
(3) The complaint shall be served upon the Respondent by first class mail or personal delivery.
(g)
(2) If no response is submitted, then the Agency Official may file a motion for default judgment, together with a copy of the complaint, in accordance with subpart L of 7 CFR part 1.
(h) Hearings under this part shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures applicable to hearings in accordance with subpart L of part 1 of title 7.
(i) Settlement of a civil money penalty action. The Agency Official is authorized to settle civil money penalty actions that may be brought under this section.
(j)
(2) Reviewability of determination. In an action under this paragraph, the validity and appropriateness of a determination by the Agency imposing the penalty shall not be subject to review.
(k)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating a rulemaking and data collection process to consider amendments to DOE's test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers. Because DOE has recently completed a test procedure rulemaking for the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of these products, the primary focus of this rulemaking will be on active mode operation. This rulemaking is intended to fulfill DOE's statutory obligation to review its test procedures for covered products at least once every seven years. To inform interested parties and to facilitate the process, DOE has gathered data and has identified several issues that might warrant modifications to the currently applicable test procedures, including topics on which DOE is particularly interested in receiving comment. In overview, the issues outlined in this document mainly concern reducing the test burden, test conditions impacting the annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) metric, test conditions impacting non-AFUE efficiency parameters, the performance test for automatic means in boilers, harmonization of standards, alternative methods for furnace/boiler efficiency determination, and scope. These topics (and others which commenters identify) are ones which DOE anticipates may lead to proposed test procedure amendments in a subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject related to the test procedures for residential furnaces and boilers, including topics not specifically raised in this RFI.
Written comments and information are requested on or before February 19, 2013.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
Requests for additional information may be sent to Mr. Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7892. Email:
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email:
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Email:
Title III, Part B,
Under the Act, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) establishing Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as both the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA, and for making representations about the efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards adopted under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth criteria and procedures that DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides, in relevant part, that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine the extent to which the proposed test procedure would alter the product's measured energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
Further, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) amended EPCA to require that at least once every 7 years, DOE must review test procedures for all covered products and either amend the test procedures (if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) or publish notice in the
DOE's test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers is found at 10 CFR 430.23(n) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N,
In addition to the test procedure review provision discussed above, EISA 2007 also amended EPCA to require DOE to amend its test procedures for all covered products to include measurement of standby mode and off mode energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Consequently, DOE amended its test procedures for residential furnaces and boilers to include provisions for measuring the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of those products. DOE published a final rule in the
In support of its test procedure rulemaking, DOE conducts in-depth technical analyses of publicly-available test standards and other relevant information. DOE continually seeks data and public input to improve its testing methodologies to more accurately reflect consumer use and to produce repeatable results. In general, DOE is requesting comment and supporting data regarding representative and repeatable methods for measuring the energy use of residential furnaces and boilers. Additionally, DOE seeks comment and information on the specific topics below.
DOE plans to identify available opportunities to potentially reduce testing burden by simplifying appropriate parts of the residential furnaces and boilers test procedure. Knowledge of a unit's physical characteristics may make it possible to reliably predict certain performance parameters without conducting testing. If so, replacing certain burdensome tests with default factors could significantly reduce the testing burden (time to conduct a test or cost of testing) without sacrificing the validity of the test results. Of course, manufacturers would retain the option to conduct actual testing, rather than rely on default values.
DOE plans to also reassess existing default factors in the test procedure, many of which were created years ago and might no longer be relevant for some of today's product designs. For example, the existing off-cycle draft factor for flue gas flow (
(1) Defining default draft factors
(2) Defining default jacket loss
(3) The appropriateness of replacing the “heat up” and “cool down” tests with default seasonal factors to account for the year-round performance of the equipment. If so, should these factors be based on physical characteristics of the equipment being evaluated, and should the use of default factors be optional or mandatory? Also, DOE is requesting data about the effect of the heat up and cool down test result measurements on AFUE calculation, the range and repeatability of the test results, and the degree to which such results are correlated with physical attributes of the tested product.
(4) Simplifying the calculation procedure for determining the burner cycling and draft losses used to compute seasonal efficiency without losing important insight about a product's relative energy performance; and
(5) Other default values that need updating or parameters currently measured that could be replaced with default values.
DOE is interested in receiving comments about improving the test procedure's effectiveness in quantifying energy efficiency performance under typical field conditions. DOE has identified opportunities to reduce variability, eliminate ambiguity, and address discrepancies between the test procedure and actual field conditions. On this topic, DOE seeks input on the following issues:
(1) The DOE test procedure incorporates by reference the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 103-1993.
(2) DOE plans to review the tolerance ranges for measuring important variables such as fuel calorific value, weight of condensate, water flow and temperature, voltage, and flue gas composition. DOE seeks comment as to whether the existing tolerance ranges for measuring variables in the test procedure are acceptable or whether DOE should define different methods of measuring and recording such variables.
(3) DOE plans to review the statistical variability encountered during testing in important variables such as firing rate, heating media temperatures and flow rates, and ambient air temperature. For example, the firing rate is generally to be set and held to within ±2% of the nameplate rating. DOE seeks comment regarding whether this range should be narrowed.
(4) Room ambient air temperatures are currently allowed to vary widely. Under the DOE test procedure, the room temperature is allowed to be between 65 °F and 100 °F, except for condensing furnaces and boilers, where the room temperature shall not exceed 85 °F. DOE plans to review whether it is appropriate to tighten the allowable room air temperature range. DOE seeks comment as to whether it should tighten the allowable room air temperature range.
(5) Currently, a minimum draft factor of 0.05 can be applied to products with restricted flueways without providing a list of qualifications or instructions as to how to verify that the units are designed with no measurable airflow through the combustion chamber and heat exchanger during the burner off-period. DOE seeks comment as to whether and under what conditions, a minimum draft factor should be used for products with restricted flueways and how the conditions could be verified if questions arose.
(6) DOE requires all non-weatherized boilers to be rated as indoor equipment (see 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N, section 10.1). This implies that direct vent boilers that would normally meet the definition of System 9 or System 10 should instead be defined as one of the other System numbers.
(7) DOE plans to review the current value of the oversize factor
(8) Currently, the DOE test procedure provides that water supply temperature must be between 120 °F and 124 °F for non-condensing hot water boilers and 120 °F (±2 °F) for condensing hot water boilers. DOE plans to review the value for the water supply temperature for non-condensing and condensing boilers. DOE seeks comment on the appropriate water supply temperature for measuring the performance of non-condensing and condensing boilers. Should DOE change the water temperatures for condensing boilers to reflect the lower temperatures encountered in low-temperature radiant installations?
(9) The current DOE test procedure does not specify that the tested equipment is set up according to
(10) AFUE ratings are typically reported in manufacturer product literature and on directories of certified products to the nearest 0.1, but this is neither specified in the DOE test procedure nor explicitly required by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Instead, DOE's test procedure specifies that the AFUE rating should be rounded to the nearest whole percentage point (see 10 CFR 430.23(n)(2)). DOE plans to specify the requisite number of significant digits as part of this test procedure rulemaking. DOE solicits input on how much precision is statistically possible.
(11) Vent stack requirements differ between ANSI Z21.13
DOE plans to improve the ability of the test procedure to measure non-AFUE energy efficiency parameters under typical field conditions. Regarding this topic, DOE seeks input on:
(1) The boiler test procedure measures only the power supplied to the power burner motor, the ignition device, and the circulating pump (
(2) Modulating power burners are often equipped with variable speed motors. The efficiency of the motor/blower combination changes with the firing rate. The same may be true for circulating pumps. Currently, DOE's test procedure assumes a fixed motor efficiency. For equipment with modulating power burners, using a fixed motor efficiency would produce inaccurate electricity consumption estimates, since the motor efficiency varies at the different firing rates. DOE plans to incorporate a method for part-load efficiency into its electricity consumption calculations for modulating equipment. DOE requests input regarding the appropriateness of incorporating a method for part-load efficiency into its electricity consumption calculations and input on what method DOE should use.
(3) The current DOE test procedure includes power consumed by the ignition device, circulating pump, and power burner motors, but it ignores other devices that use power during the active mode (
(4) Historical energy use data show that national average house heating loads have been changing because of increased household square footage, improved building shell efficiency, changes in the distribution of where this equipment is installed, and changes in average weather conditions. DOE plans to review the parameters to calculate the burner operating hours in section 10.2.1 of the DOE test procedure (
In 2008, DOE published a technical amendment to the 2007 furnace and boiler final rule (72 FR 65136 (Nov. 19, 2007)) to add a number of design requirements set forth in EISA 2007. 73 FR 43611 (July 28, 2008). These requirements prohibit constant-burning pilot lights for gas-fired hot water boilers and gas-fired steam boilers, and require an automatic means for adjusting the water temperature for gas-fired hot water boilers, oil-fired hot water boilers, and electric hot water boilers. The automatic means for adjusting water temperature must automatically adjust the temperature of the water supplied by the boiler to ensure that an incremental change in inferred heat load produces a corresponding incremental change in the temperature of water supplied.
While these requirements do not impact the AFUE rating, DOE is considering including in this test procedure a performance test to demonstrate that the “automatic means” functions as required. While this test would not need to be performed by manufacturers to certify compliance with the existing design standards, DOE would use this test to verify compliance with the design standards should a question of compliance arise. DOE invites input on:
(1) Any principles or tests currently used, or being considered for use, to qualify the operation of the automatic means.
(2) Required inputs and types of technologies needed to project changes in demand and the relationships between these inputs/technologies and supply temperature or pump/burner operation.
(3) Suggestions about the measurements that should be included in the test.
DOE invites input on other national or international test procedures commonly used to rate residential furnace and boiler energy efficiency, including the advantages and disadvantages of those test procedures compared to the current DOE test procedure. In particular, DOE seeks input on:
(1) Differences in efficiency performance caused by differences in minimum static pressure requirements in ASHRAE 103-2007
(2) Any other national or international test procedures that could be considered for this cycle of test procedure amendments.
DOE is aware of alternative methods to measure the heating efficiency (AFUE) of residential furnaces and boilers. In particular, DOE seeks input on:
(1) Procedure developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory that uses linear input/output, a relationship between fuel input and heat output that can be used to determine the efficiency of residential boilers.
(2) Any other methods that could be considered for this test procedure update.
A combination space-heating and water-heating appliance is defined in the applicable industry test standard as a unit that is designed to provide space heating and water heating from a single primary energy source.
DOE's test procedure for residential furnace and boilers, which is set forth at 10 CFR 430.23(n) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N, addresses central gas-fired, electric, and oil-fired furnaces with inputs less than 225,000 Btu/h and gas-fired, electric, and oil-fired boilers with inputs less than 300,000 Btu/h. DOE's test procedure for residential water heaters, which is set forth at 10 CFR 430.23(e) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix E, addresses gas-fired, electric, and oil-fired storage-type water heaters with storage greater than 20 gallons and gas-fired and electric instantaneous-type water heaters with storage volume less than 2 gallons. ASHRAE has an existing test procedure, ANSI/ASHRAE 124-2007 (Methods of Testing for Rating Combination Space-Heating and Water-Heating Appliances), which provides a method of test to rate the performance of a combination space-heating and water-heating appliance.
(1) What types of combination equipment are there in this market?
(2) How should DOE address the measurement of energy use by such combined products (keeping in mind the potential for active mode, standby mode, and off mode operation)?
On December 31, 2012, DOE published a test procedure final rule in the
DOE seeks comments on other relevant issues that would affect the test procedures for residential furnaces and boilers. Although DOE has attempted to identify those portions of the test procedure where it believes amendments may be warranted, interested parties are welcome to provide comments on any aspect of the test procedure, including updates of referenced standards, as part of this comprehensive 7-year-review process.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by February 19, 2013, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended test procedures for residential furnaces and boilers.
After the close of the comment period, DOE will begin collecting data, conducting the analyses, and reviewing the public comments. These actions will be taken to aid in the development of a test procedure NOPR for residential furnaces and boilers.
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period at each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this rulemaking should contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945, or via email at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires that prior to the construction or extension of any natural gas facilities, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) must issue a certificate that authorizes a natural gas company to undertake the proposed activity. However, under the Commission's regulations, the construction of auxiliary installations or replacement facilities, while subject to the Commission's NGA jurisdiction, are not treated as the construction or extension of facilities, and thus do not require certificate authorization. The Commission proposes to revise its regulations to clarify that all activities
Comments are due March 5, 2013.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
•
•
1. On April 2, 2012, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) requested clarification of section 2.55 of the Commission's regulations,
2. Section 7(c)(1)(A) of the NGA requires a natural gas company to have certificate authorization for the “construction or extension of any facilities.”
3. Section 2.55(a) excludes facilities which are “merely auxiliary or appurtenant to an authorized or proposed pipeline transmission system” and are installed “only for the purpose of obtaining more efficient or more economical operation of the authorized or proposed transmission facilities,” such as “[v]alves; drips; pig launchers/receivers; yard and station piping; cathodic protection equipment; gas cleaning, cooling and dehydration equipment; residual refining equipment; water pumping, treatment and cooling equipment; electrical and communication equipment; and buildings.”
4. Originally, natural gas companies were not required to notify the Commission in advance of constructing auxiliary installations. However, in 1999 the Commission expressed the concern that adding auxiliary facilities to an authorized, but not yet completed project, without notifying the Commission of the auxiliary facilities, would not afford the Commission the opportunity to assess the auxiliary facilities' environmental impacts, impacts which, when combined with the impacts of the authorized facilities, could potentially alter the Commission's conclusions regarding the overall environmental impact of the pending project. As a result, Order No. 603
5. Section 2.55(b) permits natural gas companies to replace physically deteriorated or obsolete facilities, including replacing existing facilities that have or will soon be physically deteriorated or obsolete, so long as the replacement will not result in a reduction or abandonment of service and will have a substantially equivalent designed delivery capacity.
6. In Order No. 603, the Commission specified that all replacement facilities must be constructed in the certificated right-of-way using the same temporary work space that was used to construct the existing facilities.
7. As discussed in more detail below, in response to the concerns expressed by INGAA in its petition, the Commission now proposes to revise section 2.55(a) covering auxiliary installations to clarify that auxiliary facilities must be located within the certificated permanent right-of-way or authorized facility site and must use the same temporary work space that was used to construct the existing facilities. This is consistent with the Commission's 2.55(b) provisions (as adopted in Order No. 603), which specify that replacement facilities “will be located in the same right-of-way or on the same site as the facilities being replaced, and will be constructed using the temporary work space used to construct the original facility.”
[R]eplacement facilities must be constructed within the existing right-of-way. The reason is simple. The authority to replace a facility and to establish a right-of-way should be limited by the terms and locations delineated in the original construction certificate. Thus, a certificate holder that later establishes a new right-of-way for purposes of [a section 2.55(b)] replacement engages in an unauthorized activity which is outside the parameters of the original certificate order.
8. With respect to this section 2.55(b)(1)(ii) requirement, we propose to substitute “existing facility” for “original facility.” We do so in the recognition that over time, the original facility may have undergone modifications, such as auxiliary installations, replacements, or emergency repairs. More significant modifications to an original facility may have been undertaken pursuant to blanket certificate authority, in particular where a company has relied on our Part 157, Subpart F, provisions to establish a new permanent right-of-way and new temporary work spaces. Further, we note that this proposed change will render existing section 2.55(b)(1)(ii) consistent with existing section 2.55(a)(2)(i) and section 2.55(b)(1) and proposed section 2.55(a)(1)(i), all of which refer to “existing” rather than “original” facilities.
9. Commission staff has also received numerous requests from landowners, asking that companies be required to notify landowners prior to entering and undertaking activities on their property. In response, the Commission proposes to add a landowner notification requirement for construction activities conducted under section 2.55 for auxiliary installations and replacement facilities, as well as for any jurisdictional activities undertaken to meet the siting and maintenance requirements of section 380.15 of the Commission's regulations. To guarantee that landowners are notified in advance of any construction or maintenance activity planned for their property, under proposed sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c), natural gas companies will have to notify affected landowners at least 10 days prior to commencing any such activity.
10. INGAA contends that during discussions with natural gas companies and in industry meetings, Commission staff has stated that under section 2.55(a), auxiliary installations are limited to activities that take place within existing rights-of-way where the original work space is used. INGAA maintains that Commission staff's position substantially changes the meaning of section 2.55(a), as it would subject auxiliary installations to the same right-of-way and work space requirements that apply to replacement facilities under section 2.55(b)(ii). INGAA stresses that section 2.55(a) does not have similar right-of-way and work space constraints.
11. INGAA argues that, historically, section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations and section 2.55(b) replacement facilities have received different treatment.
12. INGAA states that under Commission staff's current position, an auxiliary facility, no matter how small and environmentally insignificant, which would extend beyond the existing right-of-way or original work space would require NGA section 7(c) certificate authorization. INGAA contrasts this with a replacement project that no matter how large and environmentally adverse, could proceed under blanket certificate authority, provided it meets the Part 157, Subpart F, regulatory requirements. INGAA characterizes this treatment as nonsensical. By adding a right-of-way or work space limitation to section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations, INGAA contends the Commission would be imposing a substantial burden on companies seeking to maintain their jurisdictional facilities and services.
13. Section 2.55 permits natural gas companies to make certain routine modifications and additions to their jurisdictional facilities without the need to invoke case-specific or blanket section 7(c) certificate authorization. However, as the Commission has previously stated, “[a]cquiring additional land for construction activities is a section 7 activity and, therefore, does not qualify for the section 2.55 exemption.”
14. All section 2.55 facilities are fully jurisdictional. Because the originally certificated facilities had undergone an environmental review, the Commission determined there was no need to subject the comparatively minor modifications to these facilities permitted under section 2.55 to the same scrutiny.
15. In Order No. 603, the Commission added Appendix A to Part 2 to provide guidance for the construction of replacement facilities. Order No. 603 did not discuss auxiliary facilities, as no party raised any issue regarding them. Thus, the Commission saw no need to discuss whether the construction and location of auxiliary facilities must fall within the footprint of the existing facilities. Nothing in Order No. 603 evinced an intent to permit auxiliary facilities outside of previously approved boundaries, i.e., outside of an area that had been previously studied when the Commission considered the environmental impacts of the originally proposed project in fulfillment of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) obligations.
16. The authority to replace, construct, or maintain natural gas facilities is limited by the terms and locations delineated in the original certificate. These terms include the project's approved plans and procedures, e.g., the Commission staff's Upland Erosion Control Revegetation and Maintenance Plan and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, as required by section 380.12 of the Commission's regulations, as well as any conditions relating to construction methods and restoration obligations. So long as an auxiliary or replacement facility will be located within an existing right-of-way, and make use of the previously used work space, and comply with all the conditions of the original certificate, a natural gas company can rely on section 2.55 for its construction activities. However, any activity that would require a new permanent right-of-way or new temporary work space, i.e., any activity that would require any new property rights, would be beyond the scope of section 2.55, and a company would require an alternative source of authorization.
17. INGAA states that auxiliary installations are smaller by nature and have limited environmental and other impacts when compared to replacement facilities, since replacements can involve the removal and replacement of extensive mainline facilities and significant adverse effects on the environment.
18. INGAA contends that implementing right-of-way and work space limitations for auxiliary installations would eliminate the ability of natural gas companies to install many of the facilities expressly identified in section 2.55(a). INGAA states that cathodic protection, electrical and communication equipment, pig launchers and receivers, and buildings typically extend beyond the existing right-of-way and require additional work space for their installation. INGAA notes that since eminent domain is not available for section 2.55(a) installations, any additional work space can be obtained only through negotiations with landowners.
19. Implicit in the section 2.55 exemption from case-specific or blanket section 7(c) certificate authorization is the presumption that all auxiliary installations and replacement facilities will have limited adverse environmental
20. We acknowledge that certain types of auxiliary installations, such as valves, involve minor facilities that do not merit an in-depth review, as the environmental and economic impacts are minimal. However, this is not the case for auxiliary installations that are more extensive or extend beyond the reviewed and approved boundaries of an existing facility. For example, INGAA noted in its filing that conventional ground bed installations for cathodic protection commonly involve construction outside of the right-of-way. We note that as an alternative to the “conventional” method of installation, deep-well anode bed installations, which may not require disturbance outside of the right-of-way, are also in use and may offer other benefits such as greater reliability of corrosion protection. INGAA also cites communication towers for the monitoring of electrical and communication equipment as auxiliary installations that involve ground-disturbing activity and are commonly located outside of the existing right-of-way.
21. In
22. A section 2.55 facility located outside of the existing right-of-way or using land outside the previously used work space raises environmental concerns not contemplated in the original section 7(c) certificate proceeding, such as land use, erosion, sediment control, impacts on streams and soils, visual impacts, and threatened and endangered species. Therefore, to ensure the review of, and if need be, the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts caused by activities outside of an existing right-of-way or prior work space, a company cannot rely on section 2.55, but must instead rely on case-specific or blanket section 7(c) authorization. Regardless of whether a facility is constructed pursuant to section 2.55 or NGA section 7(c), a pipeline is required to obtain the necessary environmental approvals and construction permits from federal and state agencies.
23. In addition, a natural gas company cannot assume that merely because land was disturbed within the certificated right-of-way and work spaces, the construction of an auxiliary installation within the authorized boundaries will not disrupt the environment. Thus, as noted above, all environmental or construction conditions (i.e. compliance with the project's approved plans and procedures, e.g., right-of-way revegetation, monitoring, and maintenance) that were included as conditions attached to the original certificate remain in effect until the certificate is abandoned. These conditions do not expire once the facility goes into service and thus are applicable to all section 2.55 and section 380.15 activities.
24. When, in conformity with the clarified section 2.55(a) requirements, a natural gas company is obliged to file an application for authorization of a relatively minor installation outside of an existing right-of-way or work space, it is most likely that the blanket certificate will apply and the effort necessary to satisfy documentation and information requirements will be relatively minor (particularly so when an installation can qualify for section 157.203(b) automatic authorization). Further, to alleviate any concerns that the right-of-way or work space restriction will interrupt service to customers, a pipeline may use the emergency regulations under Part 284 Subpart I and/or may file, under emergency conditions, an application pursuant to section 157.17 of the regulations for a “temporary certificate authorizing the construction and operation of extensions of existing facilities * * * that may be required to assure maintenance of adequate service or to service particular customers.”
25. INGAA argues that Commission staff's position that auxiliary installations are limited to the originally certificated right-of-way and work space amounts to an informal rulemaking, without the opportunity for notice and comment, a violation of the requirements of the APA.
26. We disagree. Commission staff's actions are in accord with the requirements of the APA. Staff's position is merely a clarification of a natural gas company's existing requirements, requirements imposed as specific conditions to a certificate authorization. This is not a new policy. As stated above, section 2.55 auxiliary and replacement facilities have always been confined by right-of-way and work space limitations, since the certificate authorizing a natural gas project only covers project facilities built within the right-of-way and using the work space authorized in the certificate. Thus, project activities outside the authorized right-of-way or work space would violate conditions applicable to the certificate. Because of these inherent certificate limitations, the Commission saw no need to amend section 2.55 until INGAA's requested clarification. As a result, we are initiating this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to clarify that section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations must be constructed within the existing right-of-way or authorized facility site using the same temporary work space used to construct the existing facility.
27. Commission staff has received numerous requests from landowners that we require companies to notify landowners in advance of any activity that will take place on their land.
28. We propose to add landowner notification requirements for both auxiliary installations and replacement facilities under section 2.55 and for siting and maintenance activities under section 380.15. Under proposed sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(b)(1), a natural gas company must notify affected landowners at least 10 days prior to commencing construction. The notification should include: (1) A brief description of the activity to be conducted or facilities to be constructed/replaced and the effects that the activities are expected to have on the landowner's property; (2) the name and phone number of the company representative that is knowledgeable about the project; and (3) a description of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service Helpline, as explained in section 1b.21(g) of the Commission's regulations, and the Dispute Resolution Service Helpline number.
29. If the landowner has further questions concerning construction or maintenance activities, the landowner can contact the company representative for more details. If the landowner needs further information concerning the Commission's role in these types of projects, the landowner can contact the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service Helpline.
30. We also propose to define “affected landowners” as owners of property interests, as noted in the most recent tax notice, whose property (1) is directly affected (i.e., crossed or used) by the proposed activity, including all rights-of-way, facility sites, access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary workspace, or (2) abuts either side of an existing right-of-way or facility site, or abuts the edge of a proposed right-of-way or facility site which runs along a property line in the area in which the facilities would be constructed, or contains a residence within 50 feet of the proposed construction work area.
31. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
32. The Commission is submitting the proposed reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval. The Commission solicits comments on the proposed modifications, the accuracy of burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden.
33. The only entities affected by this rule would be natural gas companies under the Commission's jurisdiction. The information collection requirements in this Final Rule are identified as follows.
34. FERC-577, “Gas Pipeline Certificates: Environmental Impact Statements,” identifies the Commission's information collections relating to the requirements set forth in NEPA and Parts 2, 157, 284, and 380 of the Commission's regulations. Applicants have to conduct appropriate studies which are necessary to determine the impact of the construction and operation of proposed jurisdictional facilities on human and natural resources, and the measures which may be necessary to protect the values of the affected area. These information collection requirements are mandatory.
35. Because this proposed rule adds a landowner notification requirement in section 2.55(c) and section 380.15(c) for activities undertaken pursuant to these sections, the overall burden on the industry will increase. However, because natural gas companies subject to our jurisdiction must already notify landowners in conjunction with section 3 projects and section 7 applications and when conducting activities under part 157 of our regulations, no new technology would be needed and no start-up costs would be incurred. Further, even without the notification requirement proposed herein, companies routinely inform landowners prior to coming onto their property, both as a courtesy and to avoid conflicts in landowner and company activities. Thus, the proposed notification is expected to be consistent with some companies' current practices, and consequently to impose little or no additional obligation on such companies.
36. In 1999, in estimating the landowner notification burden in Order No. 609,
37. While companies are required to file annual reports of replacement facilities under 2.55(b), no such reports are required for ancillary installations under 2.55(a). Thus, we have no data upon which to base an estimate of activities under 2.55(a). In view of this, Commission staff asked for information on activities under 2.55(a) from a small representative sample (less than ten) of jurisdictional companies and we have extrapolated our estimate based on company responses. We estimate that on average, approximately 6,500 auxiliary installation projects are undertaken annually.
38. Companies file an annual report itemizing all section 2.55(b) replacement activities. Our review of the more recent annual reports indicate that companies undertake, in total, approximately 500 section 2.55(b) projects per year.
39. Section 380.15 siting and maintenance activities, like activities under 2.55(a), do not require companies to submit an annual report. These activities are generally minor and planned for well in advance and cover a wide variety of efforts, e.g., physical up-keep of above-ground facilities and right-of-way vegetation maintenance. Further, any particular company's activities on its right-of-way can depend upon changing conditions such as maintenance initiatives, population density, and even weather. Because of this variety of possible activities and their minor nature we have estimated that, for all companies nationwide, there will be a total of approximately three times as many activities as take place under section 2.55(a) which would require a landowner notification, i.e., in the aggregate, 19,500 siting and
40. We estimate the proposed additional notification burden that the proposal would impose in the table below.
41. As discussed above, natural gas companies already conduct landowner notifications for larger projects, and some companies also routinely inform affected landowners in advance of undertaking activities on their property as it is considered a “best practice” for facility and right-of-way management. Given that some companies currently comply with the notification requirements proposed herein, we believe that the actual industry-wide increase in burden will be substantially less than what we have estimated here.
• $3,180,000.00 per year for all regulated entities;
• $19,272.00 per year for each regulated entity.
42. Interested persons may obtain information on the proposed reporting requirements or submit comments by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 (Attention: Information Clearance Officer, Office of the Executive Director), by phone 202-502-8663, or by email to
43. The Commission is required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human environment.
44. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
45. The proposed regulations impose requirements only on natural gas companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, the majority of which are not small businesses. Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity. Approximately 165 companies—nearly all of them large entities—would be potential respondents subject to data collection FERC-577 reporting requirements. For the year 2011 (the most recent year for which information is available), only 15 companies not affiliated with larger companies had annual revenues of less than $25.5 million. Moreover, the proposed reporting requirements should have no meaningful economic impact on companies—be they large or small—subject to the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction. The Commission estimates that the cost per small entity is $19,272 per year. The Commission does not consider the estimated $19,272 impact
46. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 5, 2013. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM12-11-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization represented, if applicable, and the commenter's address in the comments.
47. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
48. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
49. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
50. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
51. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
52. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Administrative practice and procedure, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental impact statements, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Parts 2 and 380, Chapter I, Title 18,
5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 792-828c, 2601-2645, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352.
(a) * * *
(1) * * * The auxiliary installations must be located within the existing, certificated permanent right-of-way or authorized facility site and must be constructed using the temporary work space used to construct the existing facility (See appendix A to this part 2 for guidelines on what is considered to be the appropriate work area in this context).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The replacement facilities will have a substantially equivalent designed delivery capacity, will be located in the same right-of-way or on the same site as the facilities being replaced, and will be constructed using the temporary work space used to construct the existing facility (See appendix A to this part 2 for guidelines on what is considered to be the appropriate work area in this context);
(c)
(i) A brief description of the facilities to be constructed or replaced and the effect the activity will have on the landowner's property;
(ii) The name and phone number of a company representative who is knowledgeable about the project; and
(iii) A description of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service Helpline as explained in § 1b.21(g) of this chapter and the Dispute Resolution Service Helpline number.
(2) All affected landowners includes owners of property interests, as noted in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving the tax notice, whose property:
(i) Is directly affected (i.e., crossed or used) by the proposed activity, including all rights-of-way, facility sites (including compressor stations, well sites, and all above-ground facilities), access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary workspace; or
(ii) Abuts either side of an existing right-of-way or facility site, or abuts the edge of a proposed right-of-way or facility site which runs along a property line in the area that would be affected, or contains a residence within 50 feet of the proposed construction work area.
42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352; E.O. 12009, 3 CFR 1978 Comp., p. 142.
(c)
(i) A brief description of the activity and the effect the activity will have on the landowner's property;
(ii) The name and phone number of a company representative who is knowledgeable about the project; and
(iii) A description of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service Helpline as explained in § 1b.21(g) of this chapter and the Dispute Resolution Service Helpline number.
(2) All affected landowners includes owners of property interests, as noted in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving the tax notice, whose property:
(i) Is directly affected (i.e., crossed or used) by the proposed activity, including all facility sites (including compressor stations, well sites, and all above-ground facilities), rights-of-way, access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary workspace; or
(ii) Abuts either side of an existing right-of-way or facility site, or abuts the edge of a proposed right-of-way or facility site which runs along a property line in the area that would be affected, or contains a residence within 50 feet of the proposed work area.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Written or electronic comments must be received by April 4, 2013.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-140437-12), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-140437-12), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, William E. Blanchard, (202) 622-3900; concerning submissions of comments, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in the preamble under the “Addresses” heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS welcome comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available at
The principal author of these regulations is William E. Blanchard, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income Taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.171-2(a)(4)(i)(C) is the same as the text for § 1.171-2T(a)(4)(i)(C) published elsewhere in this issue of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and 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 a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Student Outreach Program.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 5, 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 documents associated with the APHIS Student Outreach Program, contact Mr. Kenneth Johnson, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Diversity and Inclusion, Office of the Administrator, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 92, Riverdale, MD 20737; (202) 799-7012. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
The Student Outreach Program is designed to enrich students' lives while they are still in their formative years. APHIS' investment in the Student Outreach Program not only exposes students to careers in APHIS, it also gives APHIS' employees the opportunity to meet and invest in APHIS' future workforce. Students chosen to participate in the Student Outreach Program will gain experience through hands-on labs, workshops, and field trips. Students will also participate in character and team building activities and diversity workshops. Two programs currently in the Student Outreach Program are Ag-Discovery and Safeguarding Natural Heritage Program: Strengthening Navajo Youth Connections to the Land.
The Safeguarding Natural Heritage Program focuses on activities within the environs of the communities of the Navajo Nation. To participate in this program, students must submit an essay, letters of recommendation, and an APHIS Form 120, which includes the student application, parental release form, and a health history/emergency medical information form.
Ag-Discovery was established by APHIS prior to the Safeguarding Natural Heritage Program. To participate in this program, students must submit an essay, letters of recommendation, and a completed APHIS Form 119, which includes the student application, parental release form, student contract, and letter of recommendation template. These information collection activities were approved under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 0579-0362. Including the information collection activities associated with the Safeguarding Natural Heritage Program will add approximately 100 respondents and 200 total annual burden hours.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as revised, 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.
Notice of Availability.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service intends to use the 2010 guidelines issued by the United States Animal Health Association to assess compliance with the animal welfare regulations as related to elephant tuberculosis as well as to aid users in their compliance with those regulations. We accept these guidelines as meeting the requirements in the Animal Welfare Act and are making them available for review. We welcome comment on our intention to utilize the guidelines as a means of assessing compliance with our regulations.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 5, 2013.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
The guidelines and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Barbara Kohn, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 851-3751.
The Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131-2159, AWA) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to promulgate rules and standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, housing, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, and other regulated entities. The Secretary has delegated the responsibility for enforcing the AWA to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The APHIS Animal Care program ensures compliance with AWA regulations and standards. Regulations established under the AWA are contained in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3. Currently, part 2 consists of subparts A through I, which contain regulations pertaining to licensing and registration of dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities, and standards for veterinary care, identification of animals, and recordkeeping.
The Attending Veterinarian and Adequate Veterinary Care regulations contained in Subpart C and Subpart D are performance standards that do not prescribe specific measures to be undertaken in order to be in compliance with those regulations. Pursuant to the regulations, research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors are required to provide “adequate veterinary care” to the animals in their custody. A research facility, dealer, or exhibitor that employs a part-time attending veterinarian (rather than a full-time attending veterinarian) must do so under “formal arrangements” that “shall include a written program of veterinary care.” Each research facility, dealer, and exhibitor is required to “establish and maintain programs of adequate veterinary care.” In 1998, APHIS adopted the use of a document entitled “Guidelines for the Control of Tuberculosis in Elephants” developed by The National Tuberculosis Working Group for Zoo and Wildlife Species in order to address the emerging issue of tuberculosis in elephants and to provide the licensees and registrants with concrete ways to meet the standards established in subpart D with regard to elephant tuberculosis. This guidance document has been modified at various times since then in order to incorporate new information and to improve recommended practices. These guidelines have been utilized by APHIS to monitor and address elephant tuberculosis under the AWA.
In November 2010, the Tuberculosis Committee of the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA), which has taken over administration of the guidelines from The National Tuberculosis Working Group for Zoo and Wildlife Species, approved revisions to the guidelines. Following the release of the 2010 revised guidelines, USAHA submitted a recommendation to APHIS for the implementation of the newest version of the guidelines, “Guidelines for the Control of Tuberculosis in Elephants 2010.” We have reviewed the revised guidelines and find them to be in line with the requirements of the AWA. We have determined that the 2010 guidelines are useful to determine whether research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors meet the regulations' minimum requirements for the provision of “adequate veterinary care” to elephants and the establishment and maintenance of programs of adequate veterinary care for elephants with respect to tuberculosis. We have therefore determined that it is appropriate for APHIS to continue to utilize these guidelines to assess compliance with the regulations in 9 CFR subparts C and D. We welcome comments from the public regarding this determination to use the guidelines in this manner. Given that APHIS is not the author of the document, we are unable to make changes to specific provisions contained in the guidelines. Accordingly, we are seeking comments on the overall suitability of the document as a means of assessing compliance with our regulations in 9 CFR subparts C and D.
Copies of the document are available on the Internet via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
As set forth in 7 CFR 4279.107, the Agency has the authority to charge an initial guarantee fee and an annual renewal fee for loans made under the Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program. Pursuant to that authority, the Agency is establishing the renewal fee rate at one-half of 1 percent for the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program. This rate will apply to all loans obligated in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 that are made under the B&I program. As established in 7 CFR 4279.107(b)(1), the amount of the fee on each guaranteed loan will be determined by multiplying the fee rate by the outstanding principal loan balance as of December 31, multiplied by the percent of guarantee.
The Agency was authorized by the 2012 Appropriations Bill to charge a maximum of 3 percent for it guarantee fee for FY 2012. It is the Agency's expectation that the 2013 Appropriations Bill will contain the same authorization to charge a maximum of 3 percent for its guarantee fee for FY 2013. As such, the guarantee fee for FY 2013 will be 3 percent. In the event the 2013 Appropriations Bill reduces the fee authorization below 3 percent, a subsequent notice will be published in the
As set forth in 7 CFR 4279.107(a) and 4279.119(b)(4), each fiscal year, the Agency shall establish a limit on the maximum portion of B&I guarantee authority available for that fiscal year that may be used to guarantee loans with a reduced guarantee fee or guaranteed loans with a guarantee percentage exceeding 80 percent.
Allowing a reduced guarantee fee or exceeding the 80 percent guarantee on certain B&I guaranteed loans that meet the conditions set forth in 7 CFR 4279.107 and 4279.119 will increase the Agency's ability to focus guarantee assistance on projects which the Agency has found particularly meritorious. For reduced guarantee fees, the borrower's business must support value-added agriculture and result in farmers benefiting financially or must be a high impact business investment as defined in 7 CFR 4279.155(b)(5) and be located in rural communities that experience long-term population decline and job deterioration, remain persistently poor, are experiencing trauma as a result of natural disaster, or are experiencing fundamental structural changes in its economic base. For guaranteed loans exceeding 80 percent, such projects must qualify as a high-priority project (a requirement of 7 CFR 4279.119(b)), scoring at least 50 points in accordance with 7 CFR 4279.155(b).
Not more than 12 percent of the Agency's quarterly apportioned B&I guarantee authority will be reserved for loan requests with a reduced fee, and not more than 15 percent of the Agency's quarterly apportioned guarantee authority will be reserved for guaranteed loan requests with a guarantee percentage exceeding 80 percent. Once the respective quarterly limits are reached, all additional loans for that quarter will be at the standard fee and guarantee limits.
Brenda Griffin, USDA, Rural Development, Business Programs, Business and Industry Division, STOP 3224, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3224, telephone (202) 720-6802, email
This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
Section 4279.119(a)(1) of 7 CFR allows the Rural Business-Cooperative Service Administrator, at the Administrator's discretion, to grant an exception to the $10 million limit for Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed loans of $25 million or less under certain circumstances. Due to the limited program funds that are expected for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 for the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program, the Administrator has decided to only grant exceptions to the $10 million loan limit for existing B&I guaranteed loan borrowers that meet certain criteria. Limiting the maximum loan amount will enable the Agency to provide financing assistance to as many projects as possible. In order for an existing B&I guaranteed loan borrower to be granted an exception to the $10 million loan limit, they must meet the following criteria: (1) Qualify as a high priority project (a requirement of 7 CFR 4279.119(a)(1)(i)), scoring at least 50 points in accordance with the criteria in 7 CFR 4279.155(b); (2) have an existing B&I loan that has been current for the past 12 months without such status being achieved through debt forgiveness; and (3) not be requesting a refinance of the existing B&I loan. All other requirements of 7 CFR 4279.119(a) must be met. Limiting exceptions to the $10 million limit will allow the Agency to guarantee more loans and target smaller loans/projects impacting more small businesses and will assist the Agency to conserve scarce funding dollars at a time when there is unprecedented interest in the program.
Brenda Griffin, email
This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 as amended by Executive Order 13258.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 7106, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 4, 2012, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated the third Sunset Review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. The Department finds that revocation of this countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsidies at the rates in the “Final Results of Reviews” section of this notice.
Mahnaz Khan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0914.
The countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Turkey was published on July 24, 1996.
On September 4, 2012, the Department initiated the third sunset review of this order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
The Department received an adequate substantive response to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department also received a substantive response from the Government of Turkey, but received no responses from respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is conducting an expedited (120-day)
The merchandise subject to the order is pasta. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) item numbers 1902.19.20. Although the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description, available in
All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Lynn Fischer Fox, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, dated December 28, 2012, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and the net countervailable subsidies likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which 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
Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Turkey would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailing subsidies at the following net countervailable subsidy rates:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 4, 2012, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated the third Sunset Review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy. The Department finds that revocation of this countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsidies at the rates in the “Final Results of Reviews” section of this notice.
Mahnaz Khan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0914.
The countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy was published on July 24, 1996.
On September 4, 2012, the Department initiated the third sunset review of this order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
The Department received an adequate substantive response to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department also received a substantive response from the Government of Italy, but received no responses from respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is conducting an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy.
The merchandise subject to the order is pasta. The product is currently classified under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description, available in
All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following net countervailable subsidy rates:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed 3-year extension of approval of information collection requirements in the Standard for the Flammability—Open Flame—of Mattresses Sets (Open-Flame standard), 16 CFR part 1633. The Commission has a separate flammability standard that addresses cigarette ignition of mattresses, 16 CFR part 1632. The Open-Flame standard is intended to reduce unreasonable risks of burn injuries and deaths from fires associated with mattresses, particularly those initially ignited by open-flame sources, such as lighters, candles, and matches. The Open-Flame standard prescribes a test to minimize or delay flashover when a mattress is ignited. The standard requires manufacturers to test specimens of each of their mattress prototypes before mattresses based on that prototype may be introduced into commerce. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the collection of information under control number 3041-0133. OMB's most recent extension of approval will expire on March 31, 2013. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from OMB.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments not later than March 5, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2009-0015, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
Submit written submissions in the following way:
For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
The standard requires detailed documentation of prototype identification and testing records, model and prototype specifications, inputs
Assuming that establishments qualify their production with an average of 20 different qualified prototypes, recordkeeping time is estimated to be 94.7 hours (4.73 hours × 20 prototypes) per establishment, per year. (However, pooling among establishments or using a prototype qualification for longer than 1 year will reduce this estimate). Accordingly, the annual recordkeeping time cost to all mattress producers is estimated at 63,521 hours (94.7 hours × 671 establishments). The hourly compensation for the time required for recordkeeping is $27.64 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” June 2012, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing, private industries:
The estimated annual cost of information collection requirements to the federal government is approximately $717,954. This represents 50 full-time employee staff hours. Record review will be performed during compliance inspections conducted to follow up on consumer complaints and reports of injury that indicate possible violations of the regulations. This estimate uses an annual wage of $119,238 (the equivalent of a GS-14 Step 5 employee), with an additional 30.8 percent added for benefits (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” September 2012, Table 1, percentage of wages and salaries for all civilian management, professional, and related employees) for total annual compensation of $172,309 per full-time employee.
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
• Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;
• Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;
• Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and
• Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 12-59 with attached transmittal and policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Qatar has requested a possible sale of 7 M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) Launchers with the Universal Fire Control System (UFCS); 60 M57 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) Block 1A T2K Unitary Rockets (60 pods, 1 rocket per pod); 360 M31A1 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Unitary Rockets (60 pods, 6 rockets per pod); 180 M28A2 Reduced Range Practice Rockets (30 pods, 6 rockets per pod); 7 M68A2 Trainers, 1 Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS); 2 M1151A1 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV); and 2 M1152A2 HMMWVs. Also included are simulators, generators, transportation, wheeled vehicles, communications equipment, spare and repair parts, support equipment, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $406 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of an important partner which has been, and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve Qatar's capability to meet current and future threats and provide greater security for its critical infrastructure. It will also enhance Qatar's interoperability with the U.S. and its allies, making it a more valuable partner in an increasingly important area of the world. Qatar will have no difficulty absorbing these launchers into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control in Dallas, Texas. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of two contractor representatives to Qatar for a minimum of one year to support delivery of the HIMARS and to provide support and equipment familiarization.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) with the Universal Fire Control System (UFCS) is a C-130 transportable, wheeled version of the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launcher. Integrated on a 5-ton Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) truck chassis, it carries one launch pod containing six MLRS rockets or one ATACMS missile and is capable of firing all MLRS Family of Munitions (MFOM) rockets and missiles, to include Guided MLRS, ATACMS Unitary, and future variants. HIMARS operates with the same MLRS command, control, and communications, as well as the same size crew, as the M270A1 launcher. The HIMARS launcher has a Global Positioning System (GPS), but can operate without it. The launcher has a maximum speed of 55 mph and a minimum cruising range of 300 miles. The UFCS provides the command and control interface, man-machine interface, weapon interface, launcher interface and embedded training. The UFCS enables the launcher to interoperate with compatible national fire direction systems to navigate to specific fire and reload points, compute the technical firing solution, and orient the Launcher Module (LM) on the target to deliver the weapon accurately and effectively. The HIMARS launcher is moderately susceptible to reverse engineering. However, the cost to develop and establish a production capability would be prohibitive for many countries. It includes Built-in-Test and capability to store critical mission parameters, as well as system configuration and maintenance information. The UFCS also provided position navigation and processing necessary to direct and maintain control of the launcher system to allow for accurate firing and loading of weapons. The UFCS is militarily critical because it has the latest software and hardware. Reverse engineering would allow countermeasures to be developed, degrading the total weapon system. It would also impact the commercial business base by allowing cheap replication without the expenditure of Research and Development funds. The UFCS software is classified as Secret. The HIMARS hardware is Unclassified.
2. The M57 ATACMS Block 1A T2K Unitary Rocket provides Corps and Joint Task Force Commanders the capability to attack high-value, time sensitive targets when and where collateral damage, unexploded ordnance, or piloted aircraft risk may be of concern. It can be employed, even during inclement weather, against a variety of infrastructure, tactical, and, operational targets. These targets include both single and multi-story buildings, radio and television communications centers, telephone-relay sites, and other targets located in urban or foliage restricted terrain. The M57 ATACMS Block 1A (Unitary) rocket is a conventional, semi-ballistic missile which utilizes a 500-lb HE unitary warhead. The Block IA configuration has increased range and accuracy as compared to the Block I (70-300km for Block 1A vs. 25-165km for Block I) and maintains lethality due to a Global Positioning System (GPS) aided guidance system. The M57 ATACMS Block 1A (Unitary) is the Full Material Release variant of ATACMS Unitary (formerly the M48 Quick Reaction Unitary), and has been upgraded to TACMS 2K (T2K) specifications (T2K includes redesigned components to compensate for obsolescence issues and bring down per-unit costs). Components of the M57 ATACMS Block IA Unitary missile are considered highly resistant to reverse engineering, and the impact of loss or diversion of the end item hardware would have minimum adverse impact. However, technical data for production of the Ring Laser Gyroscope (RLG), or for production, procession, fabrication, and loading of the solid propellant rocket motor are potentially applicable to development and production of accurate, long-range missile delivery systems. In addition, the RLG and accelerometers would have applicability to aircraft, space, and submarine programs. Lithium battery technology has applicability in a number of areas such as smart munitions communication, etc. Technologies used in the missile guidance and control subsystems and propulsion system are on the Militarily Critical Technologies List with details provided below:
a. The Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) is militarily critical due to the components used and the manufacturing process involved in the development of the ring laser gyroscope (RLG), accelerometers, microprocessors, and integration of the GPS receiver into the missile.
b. The propulsion system technology is militarily critical. Critical factors include low-burn rate/high performance propellant, case bonding, and design for long shelf-life stability.
c. The lithium thermal batteries used in the tactical missile guidance and control are militarily critical. Within the U.S., only a small number of companies can produce batteries having the required combination of energy density and shelf life.
d. The system software could be used by adversaries to evaluate missions and capabilities of the missile and is therefore militarily critical.
The data table and mission critical data generator special applications software is classified Confidential. The Security Classification Guide's (SCG's) classification of performance data and information ranges from Unclassified to Secret. System accuracy, lethality, and effectiveness data are classified Secret. System response time and most trajectory data are classified Confidential. Range, reliability, and maintainability data are Unclassified. Countermeasures and counter-countermeasures are classified Secret.
3. The M31 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Unitary uses a Unitary High Explosive (HE) Warhead along with GPS-aided IMU based guidance and control for ground-to-ground precision point targeting. GPS is not required for GMLRS to meet its effectiveness threshold. Additionally, GMLRS Unitary uses an Electronic Safe and Arm Fuse (ESAF) along with a nose mounted proximity sensor to give enhanced effectiveness to the GMLRS Unitary rocket by providing tri-mode warhead functionality with point detonate, point detonate with programmable delay, or Height of Burst proximity function. Control of the rocket in flight is accomplished by fins (canards) located in the nose section. The GMLRS Unitary M31A1 is comprised of a Launch Pod Container (LPC) and six GMLRS Unitary Rockets. The LPC can be loaded in the M270A1, M142 HIMARS, or in the European M270 launcher. The LPC provides a protective environment for the GMLRS Unitary during shipment and storage, and serves as an expendable launch rail when the GMLRS Unitary Rocket is fired. The height, width, length, and other features of the LPC are exactly the same as for the MLRS rocket LPC. The LPC is a controlled breathing type container equipped with desiccant for humidity control. The forward and aft LPC covers are designed to fracture as the rocket egresses from the container. The GMLRS rocket utilizes technologies in the guidance and control subsystem and the rocket motor that appear on the Military Critical Technologies List. The most serious consequences of unauthorized disclosure of information concerning the guidance and control subsystem are the accelerated development of countermeasures and manufacturing capability by other nations. Components of the GMLRS system are considered highly resistant to reverse engineering and the impact of loss or diversion of the end item hardware would have minimum adverse impact. However, technical data for production of the RLG, or for production, processing, fabrication, and loading of the solid propellant rocket motor are directly applicable to the development and production of accurate, long-range rocket and missile systems. In addition, the RLG and accelerometers would have applicability to aircraft, space and submarine programs. Lithium battery technology has applicability in a number of areas such as smart munitions, communications, etc. Production technology for the GMLRS motor exceeds limits established in the Missile Technology Control Regime.
a. The proximity sensor does not include special anti-tamper features nor is there any attempt to hide original component markings. Reverse engineering and then reproducing the fuse system, while not impossible, would require a considerable amount of resources, technical ability, testing and time; both for the ESAF and the Proximity Sensor. The details of the Directional Doppler Ratio (DDR) signal processing technique used in the GMLRS Unitary proximity sensor and in other U.S. Army proximity fuses remains classified Secret.
b. The GMLRS guidance and control subsystem is composed of a three-axis laser gyro inertial sensor assembly and an electronics chassis assembly. The basic design and packaging of the guidance and control subsystem is unique and critical to GMLRS and includes several embedded Non-Developmental Items (NDIs). The assembly must fit into the space available in the forward section of the rocket. The technology involved with the guidance and control subsystem is militarily critical due to the components used, and the manufacturing processes involved in development of the RLGs, accelerometers, microprocessors and GPS. The rocket is guided by an inertial navigation system with GPS updates. The rockets are Selective Adaptive Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) compliant and will have specific country code and coalition codes loaded in the key deployment package by the GPS Joint Program Office.
c. RLG technology is militarily critical. The RLGs have been produced and used in military and commercial systems since the mid-1970s. Widespread use of RLGs has enabled refinement of production techniques and processes resulting in high-rate, low cost production, while improving weapon system accuracy. RLG critical technology factors include the processes, procedures, and equipment used in the manufacture, inspection and test of RLG hardware.
d. Like the RLGs, the accelerometer critical technology factors include the processes, procedures and equipment used in the manufacture, inspection, and test of accelerometer hardware.
e. The GMLRS uses microprocessors to control data collection from the inertial sensors, and to perform guidance, autopilot, navigation, and hardware interface communications functions. The latest technology in microprocessor development is used in GMLRS, and is militarily critical.
f. The technology involved with the integration of the GPS receiver and the SAASM into the GMLRS guidance and control subsystem is militarily critical.
g. The GMLRS rocket propulsion subsystem technology is militarily critical. This propellant formulation has been incorporated in a limited motor volume to provide the boost and sustain thrust profile that meets the unique range and payload requirements of the GMLRS system. Critical factors include low-burn rate/high-performance propellant, limited toxicity, and design for extended shelf-life stability.
h. A lithium thermal battery powers the GMLRS rocket electronics. The battery is critical and unique to GMLRS. The knowledge required for the design and production of thermal batteries is not widely held. Within the U.S., only a limited number of companies can produce batteries having the required combination of energy density, and shelf life. However, Aerospatiale Batteries in Bourges, France also has the capability to produce batteries of this type.
i. The GMLRS system software is militarily critical. The software is uploaded to the rocket from the launcher during pre-launch operations. The system software would be useful to adversaries concerning GMLRS
j. The U.S. proximity sensor for height of burst fusing is listed as militarily critical technology. The GMLRS proximity sensor and ESAF fall within that definition. The proximity sensor design utilizes DDR as a basic signal processing technique and commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) parts for the transmitter and electronic signal processing components. The GMLRS proximity sensor uses a unique frequency and signal processing algorithm. The proximity sensor is only turned on over the target, and it cannot be functioned or turned on during pre-flight built-in-test. Operating frequency parameters and the proprietary signal processing algorithm are unique to the GMLRS proximity sensor and are classified Secret. The assembled GMLRS and components are Unclassified. Performance of GMLRS is classified Confidential.
4. The Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) is an automated C3 (Command, Control, and Communications) system for the fires battlefield functional area. It provides the commander with integrated, responsive, and reliable fire support. AFATDS is a fully automated fire support system, which minimizes the sensor-to-shooter timeline and increases the hit ratio. It provides fully automated support for planning, coordinating and controlling mortars, field artillery cannons, rockets, close air support, attack helicopter and naval gunfire, for close support, counter-fire, interdiction, and deep operations.
5. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapons systems effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 12-02 with attached transmittal, policy justification and sensitivity of technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested a possible sale of four (4) RQ-4 Block 30 (I) Global Hawk Remotely Piloted Aircraft with the Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite (EISS). The EISS includes infrared/electro-optical, synthetic aperture radar imagery and ground moving target indicator, mission control element, launch and recovery element, signals intelligence package, an imagery intelligence exploitation system, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.2 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The Republic of Korea continues to be an important force for peace, political stability, and economic progress in North East Asia.
The ROK needs this intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability to assume primary responsibility for intelligence gathering from the U.S.-led Combined Forces Command. The transfer from the U.S. to the ROK of wartime operational control over Korean forces will occur in 2015. The proposed sale of the RQ-4 will significantly enhance the ROK's ISR capabilities and help ensure the alliance is able to continue to monitor and deter regional threats. The ROK will have no difficulty absorbing these systems into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this system will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Northrop Grumman Corporation in Rancho Bernardo, California. The purchaser requested offsets but at this time agreements are undetermined and will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment contractor representatives to Korea to perform contractor logistics support and to support required enhanced end use monitoring (EEUM) activities.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk hardware and software are Unclassified. The highest level of classified information required for operation may be Secret depending on the classification of the imagery or Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) utilized on a specific operation. The RQ-4 is optimized for long range and prolonged flight endurance. It is capable of fully autonomous operations once programmed by the ground stations, including fully automatic taxi, take-off, flight data collection, and recovery. It is used for military intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Aircraft system, sensor, and navigational status are provided continuously to the ground operators through a health and status downlink for mission monitoring. The navigation and sensor plan can by dynamically updated in-flight through any of the redundant data links. Data links can be an X-Band Line of Sight communication or Ku-Band Over-the-Horizon Satellite Communications. The air vehicle has multiple contingency modes to provide safe, predictable operation in the event of lost data links, mission critical equipment, or flight critical equipment. Navigation is via inertial navigation with integrated global positioning system (GPS) updates. Taxi, take-off, and landing accuracy are enhanced with dual radio altimeters and Differential GPS. The vehicle is capable of operating from a standard paved runway. Real time missions are flown under the control of a pilot in a Mission Control Element. It is designed to carry a non-weapons internal payload of 3,000 lbs consisting primarily of sensors and avionics. The following payloads are integrated into the RQ-4: Enhanced Imagery Sensor Suite that includes multi-use infrared, electro-optical, ground moving target indicator, and synthetic aperture radar and a space to accommodate other sensors, such as SIGINT. The RQ-4 will include the following components:
a. The Mission Control Element (MCE) is the RQ-4 Global Hawk ground control station for mission planning, communication management, aircraft and mission control, and image processing and dissemination. It can be either fixed or mobile. In addition to the shelter housing the operator workstations, the MCE includes an optional 6.25 meter Ku-Band antenna assembly, a Tactical Modular Interoperable Surface Terminal, a 12-ton Environmental Control Unit (heating and air conditioning), and two 100 kilowatt electrical generators. The MCE, technical data, and documentation are Unclassified. The MCE may operate at the classified level depending on the classification of the data feeds.
b. The Launch and Recovery Element (LRE) is a subset of the MCE and can be either fixed or mobile. It provides identical functionality for mission planning and air vehicle C2. The launch element contains a mission planning workstation and a C2 workstation. The primary difference between the LRE and MCE is the lack of any wide-band data links or image processing capability within the LRE and navigation equipment at the LRE to provide the precision required for ground operations, take-off, and landing. The LRE, technical data, and documentation are Unclassified.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 12-63 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv) Military Department: Army (AAO, Amd #6)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) operations and maintenance services, equipment installation services, upgrade VSAT managed and leased bandwidth, video teleconferencing equipment, 75 VSAT Equipment Suites (consisting of 1.8m VSAT terminals, block up converters (BUCs), low-noise down converters (LNBs), required cables and components, iDirect e8350 modem, network operation and dynamic bandwidth equipment, and iMonitor software), spares and repair parts, tools, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor representative technical support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $125 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country. This proposed sale directly supports the Iraqi government and serves the interests of the Iraqi people and the United States.
This proposed sale will continue U.S. support to the development of Iraqi Defense Network (IDN) VSAT terminals. Iraq intends to use these defense articles and services to provide command and control for its armed forces. The purchase of this equipment will enhance the Iraqi military's foundational capabilities, making it a more valuable partner in an important area of the world and supporting its legitimate needs for its own self-defense.
The proposed sale of this support and services will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be 3Di Technologies and L-3 Communications Company in Hanover, Maryland. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to Iraq for delivery of operations and maintenance services, installation of new sites for each year of required operations and maintenance services, and field services to install and move VSAT sites and training for a period of one year.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 12-12 with attached transmittal and policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Turkey has requested a possible sale of 117 AIM-9X-2 SIDEWINDER Block II All-Up-Round Missiles, 6 AIM-9X-2 Block II Tactical Guidance Units, 6 Dummy Air Training Missiles, 130 LAU-129 Launchers, containers, missile support and test equipment, provisioning, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related logistics support. The estimated cost is $140 million.
Turkey is a partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in the region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability that will contribute to an acceptable military balance in the area. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.
The Turkish Air Force is modernizing its fighter aircraft to better support its own air defense needs. The proposed sale of AIM-9X-2 missiles will improve Turkey's capability for self defense, modernization, regional security, and interoperability with the U.S. and other NATO members, making it a more valuable partner in an increasingly important area of the world. Turkey will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this weapon system will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems Company in Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require travel of U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Turkey on a temporary basis for program technical support and management oversight.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AIM-9X-2 SIDEWINDER Block II Missile represents a substantial increase in missile acquisition and kinematics performance over the AIM-9M and replaces the AIM-9X-1 Block I missile configuration. The missile includes a high off bore-sight seeker, enhanced countermeasure rejection capability, low drag/high angle of attack airframe and the ability to integrate the Helmet Mounted Cueing System. The software algorithms are the most sensitive portion of the AIM-9X-2 missile. The software continues to be modified via a pre-planned product improvement (P
2. The AIM-9X-2 will result in the transfer of sensitive technology and information. The equipment, hardware, and documentation are classified Confidential. The software and operational performance are classified Secret. The seeker/guidance control section and the target detector are Confidential and contain sensitive state-of-the-art technology. Manuals and technical documentation that are necessary or support operational use and organizational management are classified up to Secret. Performance and operating logic of the counter-countermeasures circuits are classified Secret. The hardware, software, and data identified are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters and similar critical information.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee, DoD.
Notice of revised non-foreign overseas per diem rates.
The Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 287. This bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States. AEA changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin Number 287 is being published in the
Mrs. Sonia Malik, 571-372-1276.
This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 286. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the
Office of Science, DOE.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC).
Monday, January 28, 2013, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 29, 2013, 9:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, Maryland 20852, (301) 822-9200.
Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: (301) 903-0536
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
The NSAC Meeting will be broadcast live on the Internet. You may find out how to access this broadcast by going to the following site prior to the start of the meeting:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Monday, January 28, 2013; 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 29, 2013; 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
Double Tree, 2651 Perimeter Parkway, Augusta, GA 30909.
Gerri Flemming, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that on December 27, 2012, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206, ENE (Environment Northeast), Greater Boston Real Estate Board, National Consumer Law Center, and NEPOOL Industrial Customer Coalition (Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Bangor Hydro-Electric Company; Central Maine Power Company; New England Power Company; New Hampshire Transmission LLC; NSTAR Electric Company; Northeast Utilities Service Company; The United Illuminating Company; Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. and Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company; and Vermont Transco, LLC (Respondents) seeking an order to reduce the 11.14 percent base return on equity (“Base ROE”) used in calculating formula rates for transmission service under the ISO-NE Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”) to a just and reasonable level at 8.7 percent.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondents as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials and on parties and the regulatory agencies the Complainants reasonably expect to be affected by this complaint.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened in this proceeding commencing at 10:00 a.m. on January 3, 2013, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of the above-referenced dockets.
Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For additional information, please contact James Keegan,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), Recordkeeping and Reporting—Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices; “(EPA ICR No. 1381.10, OMB Control No. 2050-0122) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 5, 2013.
Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0890, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Mail Code 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9037; fax number: (703) 308-8686; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it has adopted amendments to its emission standards for urban bus engines in a series of rulemakings. The rulemakings at issue took place between 2000 and 2005. Principally, these rulemakings set requirements for California's public transit agencies that operate urban buses and other transit vehicles; additionally, the rulemakings set emission standards for new urban bus engines. CARB requests that EPA grant a waiver of preemption pursuant to section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act for the emission standards and related test procedures. This notice announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing to consider California's urban bus regulations, and that EPA is now accepting written comment on the request.
EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's request on January 30, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. ET. EPA will hold a hearing only if any party notifies EPA by January 17, 2013, expressing interest in presenting the agency with oral testimony. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to Kristien Knapp at the email address noted below. If EPA receives a request for a public hearing, that hearing will be held at 1310 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. If EPA does not receive a request for a public hearing, then EPA will not hold a hearing, and instead consider CARB's request based on written submissions to the docket. Any party may submit written comments until March 1, 2013.
By January 25, 2013, any person who plans to attend the hearing may call Kristien Knapp at (202) 343-9949, to learn if a hearing will be held.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0745, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
EPA will make available for public inspection materials submitted by CARB, written comments received from any interested parties, and any testimony given at the public hearing. Materials relevant to this proceeding are contained in the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, maintained in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0745. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality also maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver and authorization
Kristien G. Knapp, Attorney-Advisor, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9949. Fax: (202) 343-2804. Email:
By letter dated November 16, 2009, CARB submitted to EPA its request pursuant to section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”), regarding its urban bus regulations.
CARB seeks a waiver of preemption pursuant to section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act for the emission standards and related test procedures contained in its urban bus regulations, as amended through 2000 and 2005.
Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act preempts states and local governments from setting emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines. It provides:
No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No state shall require certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.
EPA is offering the opportunity for a public hearing, and requesting written comment on issues relevant to section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, we request comment on whether: (a) California's determination that its motor vehicle emission standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the record open until March 1, 2013. Upon expiration of the comment period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the record from the public hearing, if any, all relevant written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent. All information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0745.
Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent possible and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision on a submission labeled as CBI, then a non-confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted to the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the public docket, submissions containing such information should be sent directly to the contact person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed, and according to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without further notice to the person making comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it has adopted amendments to California's “Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate.” CARB has asked that
EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's request on January 30, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. ET. EPA will hold a hearing only if any party notifies EPA by January 17, 2013, expressing interest in presenting the agency with oral testimony. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to Kristien Knapp at the email address noted below. If EPA receives a request for a public hearing, that hearing will be held at 1310 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. If EPA does not receive a request for a public hearing, then EPA will not hold a hearing, and instead consider CARB's request based on written submissions to the docket. Any party may submit written comments until March 1, 2013.
By January 25, 2013, any person who plans to attend the hearing may call Kristien Knapp at (202) 343-9949, to learn if a hearing will be held.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0741, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
EPA will make available for public inspection materials submitted by CARB, written comments received from any interested parties, and any testimony given at the public hearing. Materials relevant to this proceeding are contained in the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, maintained in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0741. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality also maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver and authorization
Kristien G. Knapp, Attorney-Advisor, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9949. Fax: (202) 343-2804. Email:
By letter dated May 13, 2011, CARB submitted to EPA its request pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”), regarding its “Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate” (hereinafter “CARB's TRU Amendments”).
EPA granted an authorization for California's initial set of TRU regulations on January 9, 2009, notice of which was published in the
Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles. States are also preempted from adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions from non-new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2) requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to enforce such standards and other requirements, unless EPA makes one of three findings. In addition, other states with attainment plans may adopt and enforce such regulations if the standards, and implementation and enforcement procedures, are identical to California's standards. On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that sets forth, among other things, regulations providing the criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle emission standards.
(a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable federal standards.
(b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator finds that any of the following are true:
(1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
(2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
(3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
(c) In considering any request from California to authorize the state to adopt or enforce standards or other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate consideration to safety factors (including the potential increased risk of burn or fire) associated with compliance with the California standard.
In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: (1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.
If California amends regulations that were previously granted an authorization, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are within the scope of the previously granted authorization. Such within-the-scope amendments are permissible without a full authorization review if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any “new issues” affecting EPA's prior authorizations.
As stated above, EPA is offering the opportunity for a public hearing, and requesting written comment on issues relevant to a within-the-scope analysis. Specifically, we request comment on: whether California's TRU Amendments (1) Undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable Federal standards, (2) affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 209 of the Act, and (3) raise any other new issues affecting EPA's previous waiver or authorization determinations.
Should any party believe that the TRU amendments are not within the scope of the previous TRU authorization, EPA also requests comment on whether the California TRU Amendments meet the criteria for a full authorization. Specifically, we request comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) whether California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) whether California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 209 of the Act.
If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the record open until March 1, 2013. Upon expiration of the comment period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the record from the public hearing, if any, all relevant written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent. All information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0741.
Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent possible and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision on a submission labeled as CBI, then a non-confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted to the public docket. To ensure that
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it has adopted regulations to amend its Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle and Engines (“OHRV”) Regulations. By letter dated March 24, 2010, CARB submitted a request that EPA authorize these regulations under section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b). CARB seeks confirmation that certain of the amendments are within the scope of a prior authorization issued by EPA, and that certain of the amendments require and merit a new authorization. This notice announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing to consider California's request, and that EPA is now accepting written comment on the request.
EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's request on January 30, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. at EPA's offices at 1310 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. EPA will hold a hearing only if anyone notifies EPA that it will present oral testimony at the hearing. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing must provide written notice by January 17, 2013 to Suzanne Bessette at the email address noted below. If EPA does not receive a request for a public hearing, it will not hold a hearing and instead will consider CARB's request based on written submissions to the docket. Any party may submit written comments by March 1, 2013.
By January 25, 2013, any person who plans to attend the hearing may check the following Web page for an update,
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0742, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
EPA will make available for public inspection materials submitted by CARB, written comments received from any interested parties, and any testimony given at the public hearing. Materials relevant to this proceeding are contained in the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, maintained in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0742. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality also maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to several of the prior
Suzanne Bessette, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734) 214-4703. Fax: (734) 214-4053. Email address:
In 1995, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) requested that EPA authorize California's exhaust emission standards and test procedures for nonroad recreational vehicles and engines (“OHRVs”). EPA authorized these regulations in 1996.
The 1999 OHRV amendments did not change the numerical exhaust emission standards, but added a new compliance category so that vehicles not meeting the OHRV emissions standards could be certified subject to use restrictions (i.e., use in specified areas during specified times of the year). Non-emissions-compliant OHRVs would be identified with a red sticker or “tag,” and emissions-compliant OHRVs would be identified with a green sticker. The amendments also added ATVs over 600 lbs to the existing definition of ATV and removed the competition vehicle exclusion provision. CARB requested a within-the-scope determination for the red-tag program and for the removal of the competition exclusion, and a new authorization for the addition of ATVs over 600 lbs.
According to CARB, the goal of the 1999 amendments was to provide economic relief to vehicle dealers in California who were contractually bound to sell products that did not met the emission standards established in 1994.
The 2003 amendment modified the OHRV regulations to indicate that riding season use restrictions would begin with the 2003 model year. The request letter regarding this amendment stated that the amendment was needed to correct the “practical delay” in enforcement of the 1999 red-tag amendment.
The 2006 amendments made three further changes to California's OHRV regulations. First, they added evaporative emissions standards for OHRVs aligned with federal standards for 2008 and later model year vehicles. Second, the amendments reclassified sand cars, off-road utility vehicles and off-road sport vehicles as OHRVs, which is aligned with the federal classification of these vehicles. Each of these vehicles had previously been regulated under other federally-approved California regulations as small off-road or large off-road spark-ignition engines. The amendment set emissions standards for these three additional classes of vehicles. Third, the list of riding areas and riding seasons was amended.
CARB's 2010 request regarding the 2006 amendments sought (1) A new authorization for the evaporative emissions standard, (2) a within-the-scope determination for the reclassification of sand cars, off-road sport vehicles and off-road utility vehicles and (3) a declaration that the riding areas and riding seasons amendment does not require EPA authorization because the list is an “operational control” that cannot be federally preempted, pursuant to Clean Air Act section 209(d). California also requested that in the alternative, the riding season amendments be considered within the scope of the 1996 authorization. Finally, the 2010 letter requested that EPA concurrently consider and render a decision on the pending 1999 and 2003 amendments authorization requests.
Section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act prohibits States and local governments from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or requirement relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad vehicles or engines. The Administrator must authorize California to enforce its own standards upon making specific findings, detailed below. Section 209(d) precludes federal preemption of state standards that “control, regulate, or restrict the use,
Section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act preempts states from regulating (subparagraph A) new engines smaller than 175 horsepower that are used in construction equipment or vehicles or farm equipment or vehicles and (subparagraph B) new locomotives or engines used in locomotives. Section 209(e)(2)(A) requires the Administrator to grant California authorization to adopt and enforce its own standards for new nonroad engines not included in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), under certain circumstances:
[* * *] the Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, authorize California to adopt and enforce standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from such vehicles or engines if California determines that California standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.
EPA has historically interpreted the section 209(e)(2)(iii) “consistency” inquiry to require, at minimum, that California standards and enforcement procedures be consistent with section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has interpreted that subsection in the context of section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers).
When California makes a minor amendment to regulations that EPA has previously authorized, EPA can confirm that the amendment is within the scope of the previously granted authorization. In this situation, EPA does not typically go through the full analysis for a new request, but instead grants authorization by reference to the analysis and approval of the original authorization. A within-the-scope amendment is permissible if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any “new issues” affecting EPA's prior authorizations.
EPA invites public comment on CARB's entire request, including but not limited to the following issues.
First, should California's 1999 OHRV amendments, specifically the provision for certification of OHRVs that do not meet the emissions criteria (the “red tag” amendment) and the removal of the competition exemption, be considered under the within-the-scope analysis or should they be considered under the “new” authorization criteria? If those amendments should be considered as a within-the-scope request, do they meet the criteria for EPA to grant a within-the-scope confirmation? Alternatively, if the “red tag” amendment and removal of the competition exemption should not be considered under the within-the-scope analysis, or in the event that EPA does not determine they are within-the-scope of the previous authorization, do they meet the criteria for making a new authorization determination?
Second, does the removal of the 600 lb weight limitation in the definition of “ATV” meet the criteria for making a new authorization determination?
Should the amendment limiting the red tag program to model years 2003 and later be under the within-the-scope criteria, and if so, does it meet the within-the-scope criteria for authorization? To the extent that the 2003 amendment should be treated as a new authorization request, does it meet the criteria for a new authorization?
First, does the amendment setting evaporative emissions standards for OHRVs meet the criteria for new authorizations? Second, does the amendment reclassifying sand cars, off-road sport vehicles and off-road utility vehicles as OHRVs fall within-the-scope of the original (1996) authorization? Third, does the amendment altering the list of riding areas and riding seasons require federal authorization review, or is it not federally preempted, pursuant to CAA § 209(d)? If it is preempted and therefore requires federal approval, does the amended list of riding areas and seasons fall within-the-scope of the original (1996) authorization?
If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the record open until March 1, 2013. Upon expiration of the comment period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the record from the public hearing, if any, all relevant written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent. All information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0742.
Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent possible and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”). If a person
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
As of October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing purposes; all submissions on or after October 1, 2012 must be made through e-NEPA.
While this system eliminates the need to submit paper or CD copies to EPA to meet filing requirements, electronic submission does not change requirements for distribution of EISs for public review and comment. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first register with EPA's electronic reporting site—
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of intent to reissue NPDES general permits and request for comments.
Region 8 of the EPA is hereby giving notice of its tentative determination to reissue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits for facilities or operations that generate, treat, and/or use/dispose of sewage sludge by means of land application, landfill, and surface disposal in the States of CO, MT, ND, and WY and in Indian country in the States of CO, MT, ND, SD, WY and UT (except for the Goshute Indian Reservation and the Navajo Indian Reservation).
Public comments on this proposal must be received, in writing, on or before February 19, 2013.
Public comments should be sent to: WASTEWATER UNIT (8P-W-WW); ATTENTION: BIOSOLIDS PROGRAM; U.S. EPA, REGION 8; 1595 WYNKOOP STREET; DENVER, CO 80202-1129.
Copies of the draft permit and Fact Sheet may be downloaded from the EPA Region 8 web page at
On June 21, 2000 and September 21, 2000, U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy issued orders stating that until all necessary total maximum daily loads under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act are established for a particular water quality limited segment, the EPA is not to issue any new permits or increase permitted discharges under the NPDES program. (The orders were issued in the lawsuit
Since these permits do not involve discharges to waters of the United States, certification under § 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act is not necessary for the issuance of these permits and certification will not be requested.
Region 8 is proposing to continue to use general permits instead of individual permits for permitting such sewage sludge related activities in order to reduce the Region's administrative burden of issuing separate individual permits. The renewal permits and fact sheets are very similar to the previous permits and fact sheets. Minor editing was done throughout the permits and fact sheets to correct typographic errors, update the list of the tribal environmental contacts, and some wording changes were made to provide clarification. The only significant changes made to the permits and fact sheets were: (1) References to Biosolids Data Management System (BDMS) was removed as it is no longer compatible with current computer systems; (2) In Table 12 several antiquated analytical methods were removed from the list of acceptable analytical methods to be used in the analysis of sewage sludge. These methods may still be used with permission of the permitting authority; and (3) In Part 5.1.1.2.8 of the landfilling part of the permit, the requirement to do Part 4.1.4 of the permit was added for when sewage sludge is used in the final cover of the landfill. The purpose is to require agronomic soil sampling for calculating the proper amount of sewage sludge to be utilized in the establishment/maintenance of vegetation on the final cover of the landfill. The administrative burden for most of the regulated sources is expected to be less under the general permits than with individual permits, and it will be much quicker to obtain permit coverage with general permits than with individual permits. The substantive permit requirements would be essentially the same with an individual permit or under the general permit. Facilities or operations that incinerate sewage sludge are not eligible for coverage under these general permits and must apply for an individual permit. Wastewater lagoon systems that are not using/disposing of sewage sludge do not need to apply for permit coverage unless notified by the permit issuing authority. The deadlines for applying for coverage under the general permits are given in the permits and the Fact Sheet. Facilities/operations that had coverage under the previous general permit and have submitted a timely request for coverage under this renewal permit are covered automatically under this permit unless the permit issuing authority requires the submittal of a new notice of intent (NOI).
On February 19, 1993, (58 FR 9248,) the EPA promulgated “Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge” (40 CFR part 503) and made revisions to the NPDES regulations to include the permitting of facilities/operations that generate, treat, and/or use/dispose of sewage sludge. The 503 regulations were amended on August 4, 1999 (64 FR 42551).
The States of South Dakota and Utah currently are the only States in Region 8 that have been authorized to administer the biosolids (sludge) program. It is proposed that the EPA general permits be reissued for facilities or operations that generate, treat, and/or use/dispose of sewage sludge by means of land application, landfill, and surface disposal within the following areas:
The States of South Dakota and Utah have been authorized permitting authority for sewage sludge, therefore the EPA's general permits will be reissued only for Indian country in those States. The general permit for Indian country in Utah does not include the portions of the Goshute Indian Reservation and the Navajo Nation in Utah because the permitting activities for these reservations are done by Region 9 of the EPA. The State of Colorado has not been authorized permitting authority for Federal facilities, so a general permit is proposed for Federal facilities not located in Indian country.
Authorization for use/disposal of sewage sludge under the general permits may be for one of the following three categories: Category 1—Facilities/operations that generate and/or partially treat sewage sludge, but do not use/dispose of sewage sludge; Category 2—Facilities/operations that use/dispose of sewage sludge and may also generate and/or treat sewage sludge; and Category 3—Wastewater lagoon systems that need to land apply sewage sludge on an occasional, restricted basis. Authorization for use/disposal of sewage sludge under the general permit will be limited to one of the three categories, but authorization may be granted to one or more subcategories under Category 2. In applying for authorization for use/disposal of sewage sludge under the general permit, the applicant will be required to specify under which category or subcategory(s) authorization is being requested. However, the permit issuing authority will have the final determination as to which category or subcategory(s) the authorization will be granted. The requirements in the permit for the use/disposal of sewage sludge are based primarily on 40 CFR Part 503.
Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866): The EPA has determined that the issuance of this general permit is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) and is therefore not subject to formal OMB review prior to proposal.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA): The RFA requires that the EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The permit proposed today, however, is not a “rule” subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and is therefore not subject to the RFA.
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of settlement.
Under 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into an Ability To Pay settlement to recover outstanding cost from two parties concerning a previous Removal Action at the Ellman Battery Superfund Site located in Orlando, Orange County, Florida.
The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until February 4, 2013. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Painter. Submit your comments by Site name Ellman Battery Superfund Site by one of the following methods:
•
•
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of settlement.
Under 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement to recover outstanding cost from three parties who did not participate in a previous Consent Decree to perform a Remedial Action at the Leonard Chemical Superfund Site located in Catawba, York County, South Carolina.
The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until February 4, 2013. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Painter. Submit your comments by Site name Leonard Chemical Superfund Site by one of the following methods:
•
•
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry's (ODAFF) Agricultural Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program under the Clean Water Act.
On December 20, 2012, the Regional Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 (EPA) approved the request of the State of Oklahoma for authorization of the Agriculture Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AgPDES) program pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or “the Act”). The AgPDES program will be administered by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (ODAFF) and is a major category partial National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under Section 402(n)(3) of the Act for all discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States within ODAFF's jurisdiction.
A copy of ODAFF's application is available online at the EPA Region 6 web page:
Ms. Denise Hamilton at the EPA address listed above or by calling (214) 665-2775, FAX (214) 665-2191, email:
Section 402 of the CWA created the NPDES program under which EPA may issue permits for the point source discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States under conditions required by the Act. Section 402(b) requires EPA to authorize a State to administer an equivalent state program upon the Governor's request, provided the State has appropriate legal authority and a program sufficient to meet the Act's requirements. Major category partial permit program approval is provided for under section 402(n)(3) of the CWA. Pursuant to that Section, EPA may approve a partial permit program covering a major category of a State's discharges if the program represents a complete permit program and covers all of the discharges under the jurisdiction of the agency seeking approval, and if EPA determines that the partial program represents a significant and identifiable part of the State program required by Section 402(b) of the Act. The Oklahoma discharges subject to regulation under the federal NPDES program and the AgPDES program administered by ODAFF are discharges associated with concentrated animal feeding operations (“CAFO”), discharges from the application of biological pesticides or chemical pesticides that leave a residue, discharges from silviculture activities, and discharges of storm water from agricultural activities. ODAFF does not have jurisdiction over all discharges within the State of Oklahoma. A large portion of the State's discharges are covered by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality's (ODEQ's) approved NPDES program. EPA retains jurisdiction over discharges to Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, and over discharges under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
On August 16, 2012, the Governor of Oklahoma requested NPDES major category partial permit program approval and submitted, in accordance with 40 CFR 123.21 a program description (including funding, personnel requirements and organization, and permit and enforcement procedures), a Statement of Legal Authority, copies of applicable State statutes and regulations, and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be executed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6 and the Commissioner of Agriculture for ODAFF. ODAFF seeks permitting and enforcement authority for all discharges within its jurisdiction. At the request of EPA, ODAFF made revisions to several of the program submittal documents and the last of these revisions was received by EPA on September 7, 2012. EPA determined that ODAFF's August 16th application for partial program approval, as amended September 7, 2012, was complete under 40 CFR 123.21 and a letter of completeness was sent to ODAFF on September 14, 2012. On September 24, 2012, notice of the State's application was published in the
EPA was required to approve ODAFF's application within 90 days of submittal of a complete submission unless the submittal did not meet the requirements of Section 402(b) of the Act and EPA regulations, or EPA and ODAFF jointly agreed to extend this deadline. (See 40 CFR 123.2l (d). By email dated December 4, 2012, EPA and ODAFF extended the statutory review period until December 20, 2012.
To obtain program approval, ODAFF was required to show among other things that it has authority to issue permits that comply with the Act, authority to impose civil and criminal penalties for permit violations, and authority to ensure that the public is given notice and opportunity for a hearing on each proposed permit.
Authority to approve State programs is provided to EPA pursuant to Section 402(b) of the CWA. The regulatory requirements for state program approval are set forth in 40 CFR part 123. EPA's decision to approve the AgPDES program is based on the requirements of CWA § 402 and 40 CFR part 123. In making its decision, EPA considered all comments and issues raised during the public comment period, including those
The AgPDES program is a major category partial permit program in conformance with the requirements of Section 402(n)(3) of the CWA. The program is a complete permit program for all discharges under ODAFF's jurisdiction and represents a significant and identifiable part of the state program required by § 402(b) of the CWA. The Oklahoma discharges subject to regulation under the federal NPDES program and the AgPDES program administered by ODAFF are discharges associated with concentrated animal feeding operations (“CAFO”), discharges from the application of biological pesticides or chemical pesticides that leave a residue, discharges from silviculture activities, and discharges of storm water from agricultural activities.
ODAFF has jurisdiction over all matters affecting agriculture that have not been expressly delegated to another state or federal agency, as set out in the Oklahoma Agriculture Code, and is responsible for fully implementing and enforcing the laws and rules within its jurisdictional areas of environmental responsibility. The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act gives ODAFF environmental jurisdiction over point source discharges from agricultural crop production and agricultural services. It also gives the Agency environmental jurisdiction specific to the application of pesticides. ODAFF does not have jurisdiction over storm water discharges associated with industrial activity (as defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) at facilities whose primary industrial activity is storage of grain, feed seed, fertilizer, and agriculture chemicals (e.g., SIC code 4121) and are thus required by federal regulations to have a storm water permit. However, ODAFF's jurisdiction includes all discharges at facilities regulated by ODAFF that only incidentally store grain, feed seed, fertilizer, and agriculture chemicals to support the primary activity of the facility (e.g., feed storage at a CAFO). ODAFF has jurisdiction to regulate discharges resulting from agricultural and non-agricultural applications of pesticides; except for discharges from industrial processes, municipal treatment works, and municipal and industrial storm water, for which the Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act has expressly delegated jurisdiction to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). ODAFF also has jurisdiction to regulate discharges resulting from silvicultural discharges related to tree growing, planting management, log transport and log storage, and other activities, except those related to wood preservation and processing regulated pursuant to 40 CFR part 429 (Timber Products Processing) and part 436 (Mineral Mining and Processing), which are regulated by ODEQ.
Activities that are not within ODAFF's environmental jurisdiction include commercial manufacturers of fertilizers, grain and feed products, and chemicals; manufacturing of food and kindred products, tobacco, paper, lumber, wood, textile mill and other agricultural products; slaughterhouses, except for feedlots at those facilities; and aquaculture and fish hatcheries. These exceptions to the Agency's jurisdiction include, but are not limited to, discharges of pollutants and storm water to waters of the state, surface impoundments and land application of wastes and sludge, and other pollution originating at these facilities.
ODAFF did not seek authority to regulate discharges to Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. EPA retains NPDES permitting authority over Indian Country in the State of Oklahoma.
Authority for all NPDES permitting activities within the scope of ODAFF's jurisdiction have been transferred to the State. EPA retains on a permanent basis its authority under section 402(d) of the CWA to object to AgPDES permits proposed by ODAFF, and if the objections are not resolved, to issue federal NPDES permits for those discharges. EPA also retains on a permanent basis independent enforcement authority to address civil and/or criminal CWA violations under §§ 309 and 402(i) of the Act and to file federal enforcement actions in those instances in which EPA determines the State has not taken timely or appropriate enforcement action.
Pursuant to the MOA between EPA and ODAFF, ODAFF has taken over administration of EPA-issued general permits for those discharges under its jurisdiction while EPA retains administration of general permits for those discharges remaining under EPA jurisdiction. Dischargers remaining under EPA jurisdiction include those discharges to waters in Indian Country and those discharges under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. The transfer of EPA-issued permits is described in Section IV.B of the MOA.
The CAFO general permit OKG010000 (discharges from CAFOs) is being transferred to ODAFF with no discharges authorized by that permit remaining under EPA jurisdiction. OKR12000F (Construction General Permit—storm water discharges associated with industrial activity), OKR05000F (Multi-Sector General Permit—storm water associated with construction activities), and OKG87#### (Pesticides General Permit—discharges associated with application of pesticides to waters of the United States) are being partially transferred to ODAFF with EPA retaining the permits for discharges remaining under EPA jurisdiction. For general permits OKR05000F and OKR12000F, EPA will continue to administer the permit for discharges under the jurisdiction of the OCC. For general permit OKG87####, EPA will continue to administer the permit for discharges to Indian Country. Descriptions of the scope of coverage in general permits OKG87####, OKR05000F and OKR12000F are being changed to reflect the discharges still being permitted by EPA. ODAFF is modifying the permit scope of coverage, Notice of Intent, and reporting requirements to reflect their assumption of these permits for those discharges under the new AgPDES program.
On September 24, 2012, notice of the State's application was published in the
I hereby provide public notice of EPA's approval of the State of Oklahoma's request for authorization for ODAFF to administer the AgPDES program for discharges into navigable waters within its jurisdiction in accordance with Section 402(b) of the CWA and 40 CFR Part 123.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, most recently, August 3, 2011, and will expire on August 3, 2013.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
Because there is not an oral public comment period, written comments may be submitted. Any written comments received will be included in the official record of the meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below in advance of the meeting. Contact Person for More Information: Theodore M. Katz, M.P.A., Executive Secretary, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop: E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1-800-CDC-INFO, Email
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Identification, Surveillance, and Control of Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases in Uganda, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) CK13-001, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the ABRWH to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2013.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
This meeting is open to the public, but without an oral public comment period. In the event an individual wishes to provide comments, written comments may be submitted. Any written comments received will be provided at the meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below in advance of the meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2013.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
In the event an individual cannot attend, written comments may be submitted. Any written comments received will be provided at the meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below well in advance of the meeting.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Diane Goyette at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
During the afternoon session, the committee will discuss NDA 204516, paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg capsules, submitted by Noven Therapeutics, LLC, for the proposed indication of treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH Advisory Board for Clinical Research.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended to discuss personnel matters, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant to Empire Genomics LLC of an exclusive patent license to practice the inventions embodied in US Provisional Patent Application 61/558,402 entitled, “Gene Expression Signatures of Neoplasm Responsiveness to Therapy” [HHS Ref. E-013-2012/0-US-01], and all continuing applications and foreign counterparts. The patent rights in this invention have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide, and the field of use may be limited to:
Only written comments or applications for a license, or both, which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before January 22, 2013 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Patrick P. McCue, Ph.D., Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 435-5560; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; Email:
This invention concerns the discovery of gene expression signatures indicative of tumors that are sensitive to combination therapy comprising mTOR and HDAC inhibitors. Broadly applicable to several cancer subtypes, the detection of such signatures in a tumor could be used to identify a patient as a potential candidate for mTOR and HDAC inhibitor combination therapy.
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless the NIH receives, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability and request for comments; notice of public meetings.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) and the dates and locations of two public meetings on the Draft EA, which considered the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and socio-economic impacts of the proposed modification of the historic Bayonne Bridge across the Kill Van Kull between Bayonne, New Jersey and Staten Island, New York. As a structure over navigable waters of the United States, the proposed bridge modification would require a Coast Guard Bridge Permit Amendment. We
Written comments and related material may be submitted to our online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-1091 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
We have provided a copy of the Draft EA in our online docket at
If you have questions on this notice or the public meetings, call or email Christopher Bisignano, Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-668-7165, email
We encourage you to submit comments and related material on the Draft EA. All comments received, including comments received at the public meeting, will be posted, without change, to
To submit your comment online, go to
Copies of all written communications from the public meetings will be available for review by interested persons on the online docket, USCG-2012-1091 via
Transcripts of the meetings will be available for public review approximately 30 days after the meetings. All comments will be made part of the official case record.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) has proposed to modify the Bayonne Bridge across navigable waters of the United States by raising the roadway thereby increasing the vertical navigational clearance from approximately 151 feet to 215 feet at Mean High Water. A thorough description of the project and how it would be completed can be found at the project's Web site:
The proposed bridge modification project has been identified as a significant project under “Implementing Executive Order 13604 on Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects: A Federal Plan for Modernizing the Federal Permitting and Review Process for Better Projects, Improved Environmental and Community Outcomes, and Quicker Decisions,” dated June 2012, which requires agencies to identify and expedite the permitting and environmental review process for regionally or nationally significant infrastructure projects. The existing Bayonne Bridge has a vertical navigational clearance of approximately 151 feet above the Kill Van Kull at Mean High Water. The applicant proposes to increase the vertical navigational clearance to approximately 215 feet above the waterway at Mean High Water to provide greater clearances to accommodate larger, Post-Panamax vessels and thereby ensure the long-term viability of the Port of New York and New Jersey. Post-Panamax vessels are wider and taller ships with deeper drafts that will be able to traverse through the Panama Canal once improvements on the canal are completed in 2014. The expanded purpose of the project is to improve the substandard features and seismic stability of the existing bridge and ensure it conforms to modern highway and structural design standards. In addition, the existing bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, the Coast Guard has initiated consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has accepted the Coast Guard invitation to participate in the Section 106 process.
The Coast Guard issued the NEPA Workplan, dated September 2011, which provided a discussion of the project's Purpose and Need, project alternatives and the framework of the environmental analysis. On October 31, 2011, the Coast Guard held a coordination meeting with city, state and federal agencies to discuss the project's scope and the NEPA Workplan. On November 14, 2011, the Coast Guard issued a solicitation requesting comments from the general public for the scope of the project and the NEPA Workplan. Comments received following the meeting and during the solicitation comment period included concerns from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, various private organizations and individuals, and others regarding additional cargo volumes due to larger ships entering the Port of New York and New Jersey, the expansion of the port and port facilities, and the related impacts to air quality and traffic. In response to these comments, an Induced Demand Analysis was conducted by an independent source to study the impact of the proposed action to those communities surrounding the Port of New York and New Jersey. Further information regarding this analysis can be found in Chapter 18 of the Draft EA and in Appendix I. In addition, the Coast Guard met with representatives from minority and low income communities in Staten Island, NY and Newark, NJ to explain the Coast Guard bridge permit process and to ensure those communities have a voice in the public comment process. Based on the information received to date, the Coast Guard has determined that a Draft Environmental Assessment is the most appropriate level of environmental documentation for this project. Should the Coast Guard determine that there are no significant impacts following the comment period; a Finding of No Significant Impact would be issued. Per NEPA procedures, should significant impacts be discovered during the review process, the level of environmental documentation may be elevated to an Environmental Impact Statement. The Draft EA and appendices, Coast Guard NEPA Workplan dated September 2011, “Bayonne Bridge Navigational Clearance Program Responses to Scoping Comments NEPA Workplan,” dated February 2012, are available online at
Alternatives for the proposed project considered include: (1) Taking no action; (2) various build alternatives that satisfy the purpose and need; (3) a tunnel; (4) new cargo terminals constructed downstream of the Bayonne Bridge; and (5) a ferry service in lieu of the bridge. Build alternatives included raising the roadway within the existing superstructure (preferred), jacking the arch superstructure, converting to a lift bridge, or constructing a new bridge.
As a structure over navigable waters of the United States, it requires a Coast Guard Bridge Permit Amendment pursuant to the Bridge Act of March 23, 1906, as amended, Title 33 U.S.C. 491. Additionally, the bridge permit amendment would be the major federal action in this undertaking since federal funds will not be used, and therefore the Department of Homeland Security, through the Coast Guard is the federal lead agency for review of potential effects on the human environment, including historic properties, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
The Coast Guard, with assistance from PANYNJ, has prepared a Draft EA in accordance with NEPA. See “Viewing the comments and Draft EA” above. The Draft EA identifies and examines the reasonable alternatives (including “No Build”) and assesses the potential for impact to the human environment, including historic properties, of the alternative proposals.
We are seeking public input on the Draft EA, including comments on completeness and adequacy of the document, and on other environmental and historic preservation concerns that may be related to the proposed bridge modification project. This includes suggesting analyses and methodologies for use in the Draft EA or possible sources of data or information not included in the Draft EA. Your comments will be considered while making the decision to prepare a final Environmental Assessment, or elevate the document to an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Coast Guard will hold two public meetings on the Draft EA, one in Bayonne, NJ and one in Staten Island, NY, to provide an opportunity for oral comments. The specific times and locations are as follows:
1. The first public meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 5, 2013, from 4 p.m.-9 p.m. at Bayonne High School Auditorium, 669 Avenue A (30th Street and Avenue A Entrance), Bayonne, NJ 07002.
2. The second public meeting will be held on Thursday, February 7, 2013, from 4 p.m.-9 p.m. at Snug Harbor Cultural Center Great Hall, 1000 Richmond Terrace, Building P, 2nd Floor, Staten Island, NY 10301.
The public meetings will be informal. A representative of the Coast Guard will preside, make a brief opening statement and announce the procedure to be followed at the meetings. Attendees who request an opportunity to present oral comments at a public meeting must sign up to speak at the meeting site at the designated time of the meeting. Speakers will be called in the order of receipt of the request. Attendees at the meetings, who wish to present testimony, and have not previously made a request to do so, will follow those having submitted a request, as time permits. All oral presentations will be limited to three minutes. The public meetings may end early if all present wishing to speak have done so. Any oral comments provided at the meetings will be transcribed and placed into the docket by the Coast Guard. Written comments and related material may also be submitted to Coast Guard personnel specified at that meeting for placement into the docket by the Coast Guard.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact Christopher Bisignano, Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard; at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C.552(a). Additionally, the draft EA has been prepared in accordance with the Bridge Act of March 23, 1906, as amended, Title 33 U.S.C. 491 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-1508) and associated CEQ guidelines; Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, Environmental Planning Program; and United States Coast Guard (USCG) Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) M16475.1D, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts.
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
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
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
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2013. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before February 4, 2013.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Vantage-Pomona Heights 230kV Transmission Line Project and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments related to the Vantage-Pomona Heights 230kV Transmission Line Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
William Schurger, Realty Specialist, at 509-655-2100; or email:
The project proponent, Pacific Power, has filed applications for rights-of-way with the BLM, the U.S. Department of Defense Joint Base Lewis McChord-Yakima Training Center (Yakima Training Center), and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for construction, operation, and maintenance of a 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line from Pacific Power's Pomona Heights substation located east of Selah, Washington, in Yakima County to the Bonneville Power Administration Vantage substation located just east of the Wanapum Dam in Grant County, Washington. The BLM is the Federal lead agency for the NEPA analysis process and preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies include: The Yakima Training Center; Reclamation; Bonneville Power Administration; Grant County and Yakima County, Washington; and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The proponent's interest in the new line is to enhance overall operating flexibility and security of the regional transmission grid and to improve system reliability in the Yakima Valley.
As suggested by Pacific Power, under all alternatives, most of the proposed transmission line would be constructed on H-Frame wood pole structures between 65- and 90-feet tall and spaced approximately 650 to 1,000 feet apart depending on terrain. In developed or agricultural areas, single wood or steel monopole structures would be used. The single pole structures would be between 80- and 110-feet tall and spaced approximately 400 to 700 feet apart. The right-of-way width for the H-Frame structure type would be between 125 to 150 feet and for the single pole structure type between 75 to 100 feet. For the Columbia River crossing either near the Midway substation or below the Wanapum Dam, steel lattice structures approximately 200-feet tall would be used to safely span the up to 2,800-foot crossing.
The eight alternative routes considered in the Draft EIS range from 61 to 67 miles in length. In addition to the proposed action, the Draft EIS considers the No Action alternative and identifies a preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would be 66.3 miles in length. This route would cross 5.4 miles of Federal lands managed by the BLM, 5.4 miles of Federal lands managed by Reclamation, 12.5 miles of Federal land managed by the Yakima Training Center, 1 mile of State land, 0.4 miles of water, and 41.6 miles of privately owned lands. Starting at the endpoint, the preferred route would run generally east from the Pomona Heights Substation near Selah, Washington, continuing eastward, south of the Yakima Training Center through Yakima County. The preferred route would then travel a short distance into Benton County before turning northward, where it would cross the Columbia River into Grant County. From there the route would run northward, partially along the N Road and then across the Saddle Mountains to the Vantage Substation, east of Wanapum Dam. Other system alternatives and route variations were considered but eliminated from detailed study.
The Draft EIS identifies measures to mitigate adverse impacts for the alternatives. Major issues brought forward during the public scoping process and addressed in the Draft EIS include:
(1) Land use conflicts and effects on agricultural operations and property values;
(2) Effects on wildlife habitat, plants, and animals including threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (especially sage-grouse);
(3) Effects to visual resources and existing view sheds;
(4) Effects to cultural resources;
(5) Effects to soils and water from surface-disturbing activities;
(6) Social and economic effects;
(7) Management and control of invasive plant species; and
(8) Public health and safety.
A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the Vantage-Pomona Heights 230kV Transmission Line Project was published in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council (RAC), Southwest RAC, and Front Range RAC will meet as indicated below.
The Northwest, Southwest and Front Range Colorado RACs have scheduled a joint meeting for February 13, 14 and 15, 2013. On February 13, the meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m.; on February 14, the meeting will begin at 8 a.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m.; on February 15, the meeting will begin at 8 a.m. and adjourn at noon. The Northwest, Southwest and Front Range RACs will hold their individual RAC meeting on February 13 as follows: Northwest RAC 1-5 p.m. with a public comment period at 2:30 p.m.; Southwest RAC 2-5 p.m. with a public comment period at 3:15 p.m.; and Front Range RAC 1-5 p.m. with a public comment period at 1:15 p.m.
The Joint Colorado RAC meeting will be held at the Denver Marriott West Hotel, 1717 Denver West Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401.
Vanessa Lacayo, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield St., Lakewood, CO 80215, telephone (303) 239-3681. You may also visit
The Colorado RACs advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of public land issues in Colorado. Topics of discussion during the RAC meeting may include working group reports, the National Landscape Conservation System strategy implementation, vegetation management, youth and veteran engagement and oil and gas
The Northwest RAC topics may include a discussion on the roles and responsibilities for sub-RAC members, the Grand Junction Resource Management Plan (RMP), an update on the Greater Sage-Grouse Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Draft White River Field Office RMP Amendment and field office updates.
The Southwest RAC topics may include the Uncompahgre RMP revision, the San Juan Supplement/Final EIS, drought and field office updates.
The Front Range RAC topics may include a follow-up discussion on the Cache Creek recreation area, an update on the National Natural Landmark designation for the Garden Park Fossil Area and an update on solar energy development in the San Luis Valley.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Hunt Oil Company for competitive oil and gas lease WYW164452 for land in Natrona County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.
Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 307-775-6176. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Nautilus Oil & Gas Company, LLC, for competitive oil and gas lease WYW172559 for land in Uinta County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.
Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 307-775-6176. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Linc Energy (Wyoming), Inc., for competitive oil and gas lease WYW164393 for land in Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.
Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 307-775-6176. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Meagher O&G Properties, Inc., for competitive oil and gas lease WYW145615 for land in Johnson County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.
Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 307-775-6176. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Tyler Rockies Exploration, Ltd., for competitive oil and gas lease WYW172987 for lands in Converse and Natrona County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.
Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 307-775-6176. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $20 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 18
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Carpenter & Sons, Inc., for competitive oil and gas lease WYW161782 for land in Carbon County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.
Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 307-775-6176. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) for the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains in Cross Plains, Wisconsin.
The Final GMP/EIS will remain available for public review for 30 days following the publishing of the Notice of Availability in the
Copies of the GMP/EIS will be available to the public by request by writing to the Superintendent, Ice Age National Scenic Trail, 700 Rayovac Drive, Suite 100, Madison, Wisconsin 53711. The document is available on the internet at the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment Web site at
Superintendent John Madden, Ice Age National Scenic Trail, 700 Rayovac Drive, Suite 100, Madison, Wisconsin 53711, telephone (608) 441-5610.
We, the NPS, announce the availability of the Final GMP/EIS for the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains, Wisconsin. This document is a joint state and federal effort addressing lands within the Cross Plains Unit of the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve as well as the Interpretive Site for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail; these lands are referred to as the “Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains” for the purpose of this planning effort.
This plan will guide the management of the Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains for the next 25 years. The Final GMP/EIS considers five draft conceptual alternatives—a no-action and four action alternatives, including the NPS preferred alternative. The Final GMP/EIS assesses impacts to soil resources, water quality, soundscapes, vegetation and wildlife, socioeconomics, and visitor use and experience.
The preferred alternative focuses on providing visitors with interpretation of the evolution of the complex from the last glacial retreat and opportunities to enjoy appropriate low-impact outdoor recreation. Ecological resources would largely be managed to reveal the glacial landscape. The most sensitive ecological areas would be carefully protected, and visitor access would be highly controlled in these areas. Visitors would experience a wide variety of indoor and outdoor interpretive programming. Under this alternative, the Ice Age Complex would serve as the headquarters for the Ice Age National Scenic Trail.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Public notice of an unsolicited request for a commercial OCS wind lease, request for interest, and request for public comment.
The purpose of this public notice is to: (1) Describe the proposal submitted to BOEM by the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to acquire an OCS wind lease; (2) solicit public input regarding the proposal, its potential environmental consequences, and the use of the area in which the proposed project would be located; and (3) solicit submissions of indications of competitive interest for a commercial lease for wind energy development on the OCS offshore New York for the area identified in this notice.
On September 8, 2011, BOEM received an unsolicited request from NYPA for a commercial wind lease on the OCS offshore New York. NYPA submitted its request on behalf of the “Long Island-New York City Offshore Wind Collaborative,” a public-private entity consisting of NYPA, the Long Island Power Authority, and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. The Collaborative's goal is to develop the proposed project to supply the Long Island and New York City region with renewable energy, consistent with New York State's and the City of New York's renewable energy initiatives. NYPA's proposed project, the “Long Island-New York City Offshore Wind Project”, is designed to generate at least 350 megawatts (MW) of electricity from offshore wind resources, with the ability to expand generation capacity to as much as 700 MW. The project would be located approximately 11 nautical miles (nmi) south of Long Beach, New York, in water depths ranging from 60 to 120 feet. NYPA's unsolicited lease request, and an amendment filed on June 20, 2012, can be viewed at:
This request for interest is published pursuant to subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act, as amended by section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3)), and the implementing regulations at 30 CFR 585.231(b). Subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act requires that OCS renewable energy leases, easements, and rights-of-way be issued “on a competitive basis unless the Secretary determines after public notice of a proposed lease, easement, or right-of-way that there is no competitive interest.” This request for interest provides such public notice for the proposed lease area requested by NYPA and invites the submission of indications of competitive interest. BOEM will consider the responses to this public notice to determine whether competitive interest exists for the area requested by NYPA, as required by 43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3). Parties wishing to obtain a lease for the area requested by NYPA should submit detailed and specific information as described in the section entitled, “Required Indication of Interest Information.”
This announcement also requests that interested and affected parties comment
If you are submitting an indication of interest in acquiring a lease for the area proposed by NYPA, your submission must be sent by mail, postmarked no later than March 5, 2013 for your submission to be considered. If you are providing comments or other submissions of information, you may send them by mail, postmarked by this same date, or you may submit them through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you are submitting comments or other information concerning the proposed lease area, you may use either of the following two methods:
1.
2.
If you wish to protect the confidentiality of your submissions or comments, clearly mark the relevant sections and request that BOEM treat them as confidential. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment. Treatment of confidential information is addressed in the section of this notice entitled “Privileged or Confidential Information.” BOEM will post all comments on regulations.gov unless labeled as confidential. Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.
Dr. Andrew Krueger, Renewable Energy Program Specialist, BOEM, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 381 Elden Street, HM 1328, Herndon, Virginia 20170, (703) 787-1320.
Responses to this public notice will allow BOEM to determine, pursuant to 30 CFR 585.231, whether or not there is competitive interest in acquiring an OCS commercial wind lease in the area requested by NYPA. In addition, this notice provides an opportunity for interested stakeholders to comment on the proposed lease area and the proposed project and any potential impacts the project may have.
If, in response to this notice, BOEM receives one or more indications of competitive interest for offshore wind energy development from qualified entities that wish to compete for the proposed lease area, BOEM may decide to move forward with the lease issuance process using competitive procedures pursuant to 30 CFR part 585. If BOEM receives no competing indications of interest, BOEM may decide to move forward with the lease issuance process using the non-competitive procedures contained in 30 CFR part 585.
If BOEM decides to proceed with issuing a lease in the proposed lease area, whether competitively or non-competitively, it may provide the public with additional opportunities to provide input pursuant to 30 CFR part 585 and applicable laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). BOEM's competitive and noncompetitive leasing processes are described in 30 CFR part 585, subpart B.
After the publication of this announcement, BOEM will evaluate indications of competitive interest for the area requested by NYPA for acquiring a commercial lease on the OCS. At the conclusion of the comment period for this public notice, BOEM will review the submissions received and undertake a completeness review for each of those submissions and a qualifications review for each of the nominating entities. BOEM will then make a determination as to whether competitive interest exists.
If BOEM determines that there is no competitive interest in the proposed lease area, it will publish in the
The proposed lease area is located off the coast of Long Island, New York, beginning approximately 11 nmi south of Long Beach, New York. From its western edge, the area extends approximately 26 nmi southeast at its longest portion. The project area consists of 5 full OCS blocks and 19 partial OCS blocks. The entire area is approximately 127 square miles; 81,130 acres; or 32,832 hectares. Table 1 describes the OCS lease sub-blocks included within the area of interest.
The proposed lease area is located between two Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) for vessels transiting into and out of the Port of New York and New Jersey. Because of its close proximity to shipping lanes, the U.S. Coast Guard recommended that a buffer zone—a minimum 1 nmi setback line from the adjacent TSS—be applied to the area. BOEM has adopted this recommendation and, for purposes of this request for interest, will not consider for leasing those aliquots between an adjacent TSS and the 1 nmi setback. However, BOEM is including aliquots that are transected by the setback line. No structures will be installed above the seabed on portions of those aliquots located within the setback.
The boundary of the proposed lease area follows the points listed in Table 2 in clockwise order. Point numbers 1 and 73 are the same. Coordinates are provided in X, Y (eastings, northings) UTM Zone 18N, NAD 83 and geographic (longitude, latitude), NAD83.
A map of the area proposed by NYPA and the area included in this request for interest can be found at the following URL:
The Department of Defense (DOD) conducts offshore testing, training, and operations on the OCS and may request site specific stipulations in the proposed lease area. BOEM will consult with the DOD regarding potential issues concerning offshore testing, training, and operational activities, and will develop appropriate stipulations to mitigate the effects of wind turbines on these activities in the proposed lease area.
If you intend to submit an indication of competitive interest for a lease for the area identified in this notice, you must provide the following:
(1) A statement that you wish to acquire a commercial wind lease within the proposed lease area. For BOEM to consider your indication of interest, it must include a proposal for a commercially viable wind power project of at least 350 MW nameplate capacity within the proposed lease area. Any request for a commercial wind lease located outside of the proposed lease area should be submitted separately pursuant to 30 CFR 585.230;
(2) A general description of your objectives and the facilities that you would use to achieve those objectives;
(3) A general schedule of proposed activities, including those leading to commercial operations;
(4) Available and pertinent data and information concerning renewable energy resources and environmental conditions in the area that you wish to lease, including energy and resource data and information used to evaluate the area of interest. Where applicable, spatial information should be submitted in a format compatible with ArcGIS 9.3 in a geographic coordinate system (NAD 83);
(5) Documentation demonstrating that you are legally qualified to hold a lease as set forth in 30 CFR 585.106 and 107. Examples of the documentation appropriate for demonstrating your legal qualifications and related guidance can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the Guidelines for the Renewable Energy Framework Guide Book available at:
(6) Documentation demonstrating that you are technically and financially capable of constructing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning the facilities described in (2) above. Guidance regarding the documentation that could be used to demonstrate your technical and financial qualifications can be found at:
Your complete submission, including the items identified in (1) through (6) above, must be provided to BOEM in both paper and electronic formats. BOEM considers an Adobe PDF file stored on a CD to be an acceptable format for submitting an electronic copy.
It is critical that you provide a complete submission of competitive interest so that BOEM may consider your submission in a timely manner. If BOEM reviews your submission and determines that it is incomplete, BOEM will inform you of this determination in writing and describe the information that BOEM needs from you in order for BOEM to deem your submission complete. You will be given 15 business days from the date of the letter to provide the information that BOEM found to be missing from your original submission. If you do not meet this deadline, or if BOEM determines your second submission is also insufficient, BOEM may deem your submission invalid. In such a case, BOEM would not consider your submission.
BOEM is also requesting from the public and other interested or affected parties specific and detailed comments regarding the following:
(1) Geological and geophysical conditions (including bottom and shallow hazards) in the area described in this notice;
(2) Historic properties potentially affected by the construction of meteorological towers, the installation of meteorological buoys, or commercial wind development in the area identified in this notice;
(3) Multiple uses of the area described in this notice, including but not limited to navigation (commercial and recreational vessel usage); commercial and recreational fishing; recreational resources (e.g., dive sites, wildlife viewing areas, and scenic areas); aviation; other energy related development activities; scientific research; and utilities and communications infrastructure.
(4) Other relevant environmental information, including but not limited to fisheries; protected species and habitats; marine mammals; sea turtles; birds; bats; zooplankton; and archaeological resources.
(5) Socioeconomic information, such as demographics and employment, or information relevant to environmental justice considerations.
BOEM will protect privileged or confidential information that you submit as required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of FOIA applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that you submit that is privileged or confidential. If you wish to protect the confidentiality of such information, clearly mark it and request that BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information, subject to the requirements of FOIA. Please label privileged or confidential information, “Contains Confidential Information,” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment.
However, BOEM will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of such information or comments not containing such information. Additionally, BOEM will not treat as confidential: (1) The legal title of the nominating entity (for example, the name of your company); or (2) the geographic location of nominated facilities. Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.
BOEM is required, after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to withhold the location, character, or ownership of historic resources if it determines that disclosure may, among other things, cause a significant invasion of privacy, risk harm to the historic resources, or impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Tribal entities and other interested parties should designate such information that they wish to be held as confidential.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase countervailing duty investigations Nos. 701-TA-491-497 (Preliminary) under sections 703(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam of frozen warmwater shrimp, provided for in subheadings 0306.17.00, 1605.21.10 and 1605.29.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to sections 702(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by February 11, 2013. The Commission's views are due at Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by February 19, 2013.
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
Amy Sherman (202-205-3289), Office
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Edward Petronzio (202-205-3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
On August 3, 2012, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (77 FR 51569, August 24, 2012). The Commission is revising its schedule as follows: the Commission will make its final release of information on January 16, 2013 and final party comments are due on January 18, 2013.
For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of cancellation of open hearing.
The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has been canceled: Criminal Rules Hearing, January 28, 2013, Washington, DC.
Benjamin J. Robinson, Deputy Rules Officer and Counsel, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of December 3, 2012 through December 7, 2012.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) There has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the
(B) Notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) Notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1), or (c)(1) (employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of December 10, 2012 through December 14, 2012.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) There has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) Notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) Notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1), or (c)(1)(employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of November 26, 2012 through November 30, 2012.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles
(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) There has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) Notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) Notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
By application dated September 17, 2012, a state workforce representatives requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Commercial/Actuarial/Information Delivery Services (IDS)/Corporate & Financial Reporting group, Hartford, Connecticut (The Hartford-IDS Group). The determination was issued on August 2, 2012. The determination was corrected on September 19, 2012 to clarify the basis for the negative determination.
The Hartford-IDS Group is engaged in activities related to the supply of financial services. Specifically, the workers provide business and
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that with respect to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act, Criterion (1) has not been met because a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have not become totally or partially separated, nor are they threatened to become totally or partially separated.
Significant number or proportion of the workers means that: (a) In most cases the total or partial separations, or both, in a firm or appropriate subdivision thereof, are the equivalent to a total unemployment of five percent (5 percent) of the workers or 50 workers, whichever is less; or (b) At least three workers` in a firm (or appropriate subdivision thereof) with a work force of fewer than 50 workers would ordinarily have to be affected (29 CFR 90.2).
The request for reconsideration states that “The Hartford Financial Services employs nearly 10,000 employees in Connecticut. The majority work full-time hours and are employed at the 690 Asylum Ave, Hartford, Connecticut site, the location of the petition in question * * * According to a former employee for whom the 81,815 was filed, his Unit was an independent unit isolated from others, but the information prepared by his unit, the database, was used by many units within The Hartford. His particular Unit encompassed roughly 75 employees. While only a few workers have been laid off to date in the specific unit, the database was used by many units, including units that have been TAA-certified.”
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and will conduct further investigation to clarify the subject worker group and to determine if workers have met the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application dated November 8, 2012, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 98, requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Joy Global, Inc., also known as Joy Technologies, Inc., including on-site leased workers from All Seasons Temporaries and Manpower, Franklin, Pennsylvania (Joy Global). The determination was issued on October 16, 2012. The workers' firm is engaged in activities related to the production of mobile underground mining machines and repair components. Workers are not separately identifiable by product.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that, with respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, Joy Global has not experienced a decline in the sales or production of mobile underground mining machines and repair components during the relevant period under investigation.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation revealed that Joy Global did not shift the production of mobile underground mining machines and repair components or a like or directly competitive article to a foreign country or acquire mobile underground mining machines and repair components or a like or directly competitive article from a foreign country. Although workers of Joy Technologies, Inc., Mt. Vernon, Illinois (TA-W-57,700) were eligible to apply for TAA based on a shift in production of mining machinery components to Mexico, the investigation revealed that worker separations at the subject firm were not caused by a shift in production of mobile underground mining machines or repair components to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation revealed that Joy Global is not a Supplier to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a) and does not act as a Downstream Producer to a firm (or subdivision, whichever is applicable) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied since the workers' firm has not been publically identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
The request for reconsideration included information regarding a possible shift in production.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and will conduct further investigation to clarify the subject worker group and to determine if workers have met the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application dated October 26, 2012, a worker requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division, Alpharetta, Georgia (TA-W-81,846), Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division, Hunt Valley, Maryland (TA-W-81,846A), Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division, Naperville, Illinois (TA-W-81,846B), Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division, St. Louis, Missouri (TA-W-81,846C), and Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division, Plano, Texas (TA-W-81,846D). The determination was issued on September 28, 2012.
Workers at the subject firm are engaged in activities related to the supply of services of installation specification writing and maintenance customer record drawings for the installation of telecom equipment.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that, with respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the firm and customers did not import services like or directly competitive with the services provided by the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the supply of services of installation specification writing and maintenance customer record drawings for the installation of telecom equipment, or a like or directly competitive service, to a foreign country or acquire the supply of services of installation specification writing and maintenance customer record drawings for the installation of telecom equipment, or a like or directly competitive service, from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation revealed that the subject firm is not a Supplier to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation revealed that Goodman does not act as a Downstream Producer to a firm (subdivision, whichever is applicable) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied since the workers' firm has not been publically identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
The request for reconsideration included information regarding a possible shift in the supply of services to a foreign country.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and will conduct further investigation to clarify the subject worker group and to determine if workers have met the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
On May 31, 2012, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) ordered the United States Department of Labor (Department) to conduct further investigation in
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Act), 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), can be satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and
(2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely;
(ii)(I) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(II) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles—
(aa) Into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, or
(bb) Which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; or
(III) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased; and
(iii) The increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
(B)(i)(I) There has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or
(II) Such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; and
(ii) The shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
The initial investigation began on October 23, 2009 when three workers filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf of workers and former workers of the Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin (subject facility). Workers at the subject facility (subject worker group) supply administrative support services related to the production of doors and windows at various domestic locations of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. (hereafter referred to as “subject firm” or “Weather Shield”).
29 CFR 90.2 states that “Increased imports means that imports have increased either absolutely or relative to domestic production compared to a representative base period. The representative base period shall be one year consisting of the four quarters immediately preceding the date which is the twelve month prior to the date of the petition.” As such, the relevant time period for this investigation is October 2008 through September 2009, and the representative base period is October 2007 through September 2008 (hereafter referred to as “relevant time period” or “period under investigation”).
The initial investigation revealed that neither the subject firm nor its customers increased import purchases of either doors or windows (or like or directly competitive articles) during the relevant time period. Additionally, the subject firm had not shifted abroad either the production of these articles or services like or directly competitive with those supplied by the worker group in the period under investigation. As such, the group eligibility requirements were not satisfied, and the Department issued a negative determination on July 16, 2010. The Department's Notice of Negative Determination was published in the
By application dated August 23, 2010, one of the petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination. In the application, the petitioner stated that the worker group covered by petition TA-W-72,673 was impacted by the same import competition as the worker group covered by TAA certification TA-W-64,725, which was issued on August 9, 2010 (Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin; petition dated December 17, 2008) and argued that the same conclusion awarding worker adjustment assistance should be applied in the case at hand. However, because it was determined that a different relevant time period was at issue which resulted in a different conclusion, the Department determined that the determination in TA-W-64,725 was not controlling.
Because the Department determined that administrative reconsideration could not be granted, a Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration was issued on September 10, 2010, in accordance with 29 CFR 90.18(c). The Department's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration was published in the
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint with the USCIT on October 8, 2010, and argued the same allegations as in their request for administrative reconsideration. The Department determined that further investigation under judicial review was unjustified and filed an administrative record of the materials upon which the Department relied in making its determination with regards to the subject worker group's eligibility to apply for TAA.
In Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record, dated March 30, 2011, Plaintiffs indicated that the administrative record did not include documentation that adequately supported the negative determination and submitted additional information to be considered by the Department to show that Weather Shield faced import competition.
On May 2, 2011, the Department filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand in which it sought to supplement the administrative record with documentation that was used in the decision making process for case TA-W-64,725 and explain the relevance of this material. At that time, the Department did not seek to conduct further investigation. Rather, the Department amended the administrative record on June 3, 2011 to include documents from case TA-W-64,725 and supplemented the record with an explanation regarding the relevance of these documents.
The Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record on July 5, 2011 in which they asked the Department to conduct further investigation and apply the same methodology for administering customer surveys and determining import competition as in the TA-W-64,725 remand investigation. Specifically, the Plaintiffs stated that the Department should collect additional information from the subject firm's customers and competitors.
On August 3, 2011, the Department requested a second voluntary remand to conduct further investigation, to permit the Plaintiffs to submit additional evidence, and to supplement the administrative record with all the contents of the TA-W-64,725 case record. During the second remand investigation, the Department collected additional information from the subject firm, conducted an expanded customer survey, collected aggregate U.S. import data, and sought input from the Plaintiffs.
The Department found that imports of Weather Shield's customers had declined during the relevant time period. The updated data also revealed that, contrary to information that had been provided previously, the subject firm's total sales for the relevant time period increased. As such, the Department determined that worker separations were not related to trade impact and reaffirmed the negative determination regarding TAA eligibility. On October 11, 2011 the Department issued a Negative Determination on Remand. The Department's Notice of Negative Determination was published in the
On December 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record. The Plaintiffs contended that the Department had not fully investigated the change in sales reported by Weather Shield; had not fully investigated if Weather Shield lost business to competitor Simpson Door Company, whose workers were eligible to apply for TAA under TA-W-65,585; and that the Department did not contact the domestic suppliers of a major customer of the subject firm to determine whether the suppliers sold imported articles to the customer, which could have created import competition for the subject firm.
On February 3, 2012, the Department filed Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record. In the response, the
On February 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record in which they stated that the Department failed to investigate conflicting information provided by Weather Shield during the initial and first remand investigations of this petition regarding its overall sales of doors and windows in the relevant time period; pointed to possible import competition by alleged Weather Shield competitor, Simpson Door Company; stated that the Department failed to investigate if imports by Simpson could have impacted operations at the subject firm; and alleged that the Department did not investigate sufficiently whether a major customer of the subject firm had purchased imported doors and/or windows indirectly through its other domestic suppliers during the relevant time period.
On May 31, 2012, the USCIT filed a Memorandum and Order that stated that the Department's decision cannot be sustained as it does not explain the change in Weather Shield's reported sales information supplied by the subject firm. Additionally, the Memorandum stated that the investigation did not adequately address whether the customer purchased imported product from its other suppliers. The USCIT remanded the case to the Department to “review and reconsider its explanation for the differences in Weather Shield's sales for 2008; as well as its conclusions related to import volumes.”
Pursuant to the May 31, 2012 Order, the Department again solicited information from Weather Shield regarding its sales for 2008 and 2009. In order to ensure the accuracy of the information collected from the subject firm throughout this investigation on which this determination is based, the Department requested and received an Affirmation of Information, signed under penalty of law, by the official representative of the subject firm. SUAR 170-173, 174-178.
Because the two sets of sales data provided by the subject firm during the earlier investigations were not identical, the Department requested that the subject firm provide an explanation regarding the discrepancy between the two sets of data along with the correct sales information. SUAR 2-26, 27-31. In order to determine if sales or production declined during the relevant time period, the Department also solicited information regarding Weather Shield's production data during the same time period. SUAR 35-39. The findings confirmed that, in terms of value, Weather Shield sales increased from 2008 to 2009. SUAR 32, 81.
In order for the Department to obtain from the subject firm production information regarding its total 2008 and 2009 doors and window units and to resolve any inconsistencies, on July 6, 2012, the Department filed its first motion for an enlargement of time. The time extension was also requested at this time to allow for the collection and analysis of the customer's supplier responses. On July 9, 2012, the USCIT granted the Department's request for a time enlargement that extended the deadline for filing the results to August 15, 2012.
On July 19, 2012, the subject firm reported that production of doors and windows at the manufacturing locations which received the administrative support services of the subject worker group declined from 2008 to 2009. SUAR 40-45. The Department asked the subject firm to provide an explanation regarding the reason that a sales increase occurred while production declined. SUAR 40-45, 46-65, 66-71, 72-77, 78-80.
On August 6, 2012, the Department served Weather Shield with a subpoena to explain why the subject firm reported an increase in the value of sales of windows and doors for the same period (calendar year 2008 to calendar year 2009) that it reported a decrease in the production of these articles. SUAR 72-77.
Although Weather Shield reported that the sales information which was provided during the second remand was correct, SUAR 81, the Department sought further explanation of the seemingly inverse relationship between sales and production. The subject firm affirmed that total sales of doors and windows for 2008 and 2009 had increased. SUAR 32, 81. The subject firm also stated that the production numbers submitted earlier were provided in error and that they had submitted updated and accurate information. SUAR 81.
On August 14, 2012, the Department filed a motion for a second enlargement of time of 60 days to continue the remand investigation. The Plaintiffs consented to the motion filed for the time enlargement provided that they receive any new relevant information provided by Weather Shield and to be given opportunity to comment.
In accordance with the August 22, 2012 Order, the Department submitted to the Plaintiffs information that consisted of email correspondence between the Department and the subject firm that took place between June 14, 2012 and August 8, 2012 and the subpoena served on August 6, 2012. SUAR 295-378.
On September 17, 2012, Plaintiffs provided comments on the released information, along with new import information. SUAR 382-386. The Plaintiffs stated that the information was insufficient for the following reasons: the record did not establish that all manufacturing locations and products manufactured by the subject firm were included in the sales and production figures; the Department had not demonstrated that the subject firm understood the questions posed and the type of information that had been requested, which had caused responses to be insufficient or incorrect; and that the subject firm had not provided accurate data regarding its imports of finished goods. SUAR 382-386.
The Plaintiffs also argued that it is unclear from the record how many of the subject firm's production facilities are covered under this investigation. SUAR 382-386. Specifically, the Plaintiffs point out that, during the second remand investigation, the Department found that, although the subject firm pointed to five production locations that were supported by the corporate headquarters during the initial investigation, the Department later received information that the corporate headquarters supported ten production facilities. UAR 17-22, 779-782. SUAR 174-178, 179-183, 184-186.
The Plaintiffs' comments regarding the five locations were derived from information that was submitted by the subject firm during the initial investigation of TA-W-64,735. UAR 17-22. That information was updated after the conclusion of the investigation of TA-W-64,735, and, during the second remand investigation of TA-W-72,673, the subject firm submitted a list of the ten production facilities that were supported by the subject worker group and fall within the scope of this investigation. UAR 779-782. SUAR 174-178, 179-183, 184-186.
As attested by the subject firm official and reflected in the record, the third remand investigation covered the locations supported by the subject worker group and all the products manufactured at those locations; the
The Plaintiffs asked the Department to obtain from the subject firm evidence that the information submitted to the Department during this investigation was accurate and complete. SUAR 382-386. In particular, the Plaintiffs suggested that hard copies or electronic screen shots of accounting records would be beneficial in supporting the findings. SUAR 382-386.
As noted earlier, the Department received from the subject firm's representative a signed Attestation. Therefore, the Department's reliance upon information supplied by the subject firm during the third remand investigation is reasonable. Nonetheless, the Department reviewed the record and determined that any inconsistencies that Plaintiffs raised were already resolved based on the record through the investigation by the Department and, consequently, that a review of the subject firm's financial records are not necessary.
Regarding the Plaintiff's claims of inaccuracy and inconsistency of the investigation, the Department identified information that is already part of the record to address the allegations and collected additional information from the subject firm. UAR 779-782, 787, 789, 793-794, 796, 800, 820-821. SUAR 2-26, 27-31, 32-34, 35-39, 174-178, 179-183, 184-186.
To further support their argument regarding the inaccuracy of Weather Shield's import information, the Plaintiffs provided data from a trade publication. Specifically, the Plaintiffs submitted a bill of lading report from Zepol Corporation (
The Department contacted the subject firm to obtain further information to address Plaintiff comments regarding the bill of lading. SUAR 83-98. Specifically, the Department again solicited information to confirm that the subject firm did not import doors and/or windows, or like or directly competitive articles, during the relevant time period. SUAR 83-98. The Department also requested that the subject firm provide information on its domestic vendors and to address the information submitted by the Plaintiffs from zepol.com. SUAR 83-98, 100-101, 102-104, 141, 142-143, 144-145, 146-147, 148-149.
The subject firm responded that the importer and consignee listed on the bill of lading document is a domestic vendor that supplies the subject firm with articles that are neither like nor directly competitive with either windows or doors. SUAR 99, 105-140 150-152. The subject firm confirmed that it does not conduct business with any foreign firms, including the one listed on the bill of lading under the exporter column. SUAR 105-140, 150-152, 177-178.
The Department asked the subject firm to provide more detailed information on the relationship between the subject firm and the vendor listed on the bill of lading document, as well as provide information on any relationships with any other foreign firms during the relevant time period. SUAR 83-98, 99, 100-101, 102-104, 142-143, 144-145, 150-152. The subject firm stated that the vendor provided articles that are neither like nor directly competitive with either windows or doors, confirmed that Weather Shield does not purchase window or door units from vendors, and stated that the subject firm does not have information pertaining to the origin of the products purchased from vendors. SUAR 83-98, 99, 100-101, 102-104, 142-143, 144-145, 150-152. The subject firm explained that it does not purchase from vendors finished doors or windows and submitted a list of its top twenty vendors for 2008 and 2009. SUAR 105-140. The list included vendors that supplied services and articles other than doors and windows. SUAR 150-152.
In addition to the information collected from the subject firm regarding the new allegations, the Department conducted its own trade records search on zepol.com. SUAR 481-482, 485-488. The search did not expose any import information relating to the subject firm for the relevant time period. SUAR 481-482, 485-488.
On October 2, 2012, the Department released more information to the Plaintiffs. The information included email correspondence between the Department and the subject firm that occurred between September 21, 2012 and October 1, 2012. SUAR 389-464.
On October 12, 2012, the Department filed a third motion for an enlargement of time. The motion stated that the Department required an extension to allow Plaintiffs to review and comment on the information provided by Weather Shield on October 2, 2012 (the second release of information to Plaintiffs), and, once comments are received, to analyze the comments, to collect further information as needed, and to file its remand findings. The USCIT granted the Department until December 17, 2012 to file the Department's third remand results and the supplemental updated administrative record.
On October 15, 2012, Plaintiffs submitted comments regarding the second information release. The comments provided by the Plaintiffs were erroneous on several counts. SUAR 467-469.
First, the Plaintiffs misunderstood the time periods for which information was collected and stated that the subject firm provided information for its vendors for 2007 and 2008. SUAR 467-469. The record evidence covers periods 2008 and 2009, which is the period under investigation.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs claimed that Weather Shield provided information regarding only one of its vendors. SUAR 467-469. This is inaccurate because Weather Shield had provided information regarding its top twenty vendors and confirmed that it does not purchase from vendors finished door or window products. SUAR 105-140, 150-152. Further, the Plaintiffs misunderstood the Department's intent when it questioned the subject firm regarding one vendor in more detail because the name of this vendor was found on the trade publication submitted by the Plaintiffs. SUAR 83-98. According to the information received from the subject firm, the vendor provided articles that are neither like nor directly competitive with either windows or doors to Weather Shield. Therefore, any such imports could not have contributed to a decline in employment and sales or production at the subject firm. Imports of articles other than doors or windows (or like or directly competitive articles) fall outside the scope of this investigation.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs stated that the Department should have solicited information from the subject firm regarding its imports of articles. SUAR 467-469. At the time the comments were submitted, Plaintiffs were informed that Weather Shield had confirmed that it did not import finished doors or windows (or like or directly competitive articles). This information was part of the October 2, 2011 information release. SUAR 389-464.
During the initial investigation of this petition, the Department conducted a customer survey on the customers of the subject firm to determine if the layoffs at Weather Shield were the result of increased import competition. UAR 562-565, 566-572, 573-575, 576-578, 579-581, 582, 679-738. A sample group of the subject firm's customers were surveyed regarding their purchases of doors and/or windows made in the relevant time period from the subject firm, other domestic firms, and foreign firms. The Department repeated a larger survey during the second remand that captured the majority of the subject firm's customer base during the period under investigation. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. Both surveys demonstrated that customer imports declined during the relevant time period.
The results of the second remand investigation's customer survey showed that purchases made by the surveyed customers from the subject firm declined. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. Purchases made by these customers from other domestic and foreign firms also declined. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. Specifically, in the second survey conducted during the remand investigation, the Department captured 73 percent of the subject firm's customer base, in terms of value, in 2008 and 46 percent in 2009. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. During the surveyed period, customer imports declined 20 percent. UAR 1243-1319, 1325-1344. The survey conducted on Weather Shield's customers also showed that total customer imports declined 63 percent from 2008 to 2009. UAR 1325-1344.
At the time of this customer survey, the subject firm had submitted information to the Department that indicated a decline of total sales of doors and windows from 2008 to 2009. UAR 585, 673. However, it was revealed in the second remand that overall sales of the subject firm increased. UAR 815.
In the customer survey that was conducted during the initial investigation of this petition, one (and the largest) of Weather Shield's customers (for confidentiality purposes, this customer will hereafter be referred to as “the customer”) was unable to provide a response to question #2 on the Business Confidential Customer Survey (OMB #1205-0342, Exp. 1/31/2013) which asks if the products purchased from other domestic firms were manufactured in a foreign country. UAR 562-565, 566-572.
The information that this significant customer provided on the survey showed that its purchases from the subject firm declined from 2008 to 2009. The customer's purchases from other domestic and foreign firms also declined during the same period. UAR 562-565, 566-572.
To determine whether the subject firm may have competed with imported doors and/or windows of the other domestic suppliers of the customer, the Department followed up with the customer during the second remand to solicit information regarding the origin of the articles it purchases from other domestic firms. The customer again responded that it does not track import information on articles purchased from domestic suppliers and submitted a list of its suppliers for the relevant time period. UAR 823.
The customer was contacted again during this third remand investigation to confirm the information that it submitted during the initial and remand investigations of this petition. SUAR 188-239. The customer also submitted additional information regarding the size (purchase value) of its 2008 and 2009 domestic door and/or window suppliers along with more specific information about the products purchased from each supplier. SUAR 188-239.
Although the Department believes that its previous determination based on the findings of the customer survey was correct, the Department contacted each of the customer's suppliers to question whether they sold imported product to this customer in the period under investigation. SUAR 240-293.
In order to determine whether any imported product sold to the customer by its other domestic suppliers contributed importantly to a decline in operations at Weather Shield, the Department first had to determine the size of each supplier in relation to the customer's operations, and then examine any import impact on the operations of the subject firm.
The Department had to determine if the customer decreased its purchases from the subject firm and increased purchases from suppliers that imported the doors and/or windows they sold to the customer in the relevant time period. The customer provided information regarding the size, in purchase value, of its suppliers which was used to determine the significance of each supplier relative to the customer's operations and whether any of their imports could have impacted operations at Weather Shield. SUAR 187-239. The Department contacted all of the domestic suppliers of doors and windows of the customer to obtain information regarding the origin of the products sold to the customer in the years 2008 and 2009. SUAR 241-293. Each supplier was requested to specify how much, if any, of the doors and/or windows sold to the customer in the relevant time period was manufactured in a foreign country. SUAR 241-293.
A portion of the suppliers-approximately 24 percent of the customer's door and window supplier base in 2008 and 22 percent in 2009—reported that the articles that they sold to the customer were manufactured in a foreign country. SUAR 241-293, 477, 480. However, because the suppliers imported a negligible percentage of the articles they sold to the customer, the customer purchased approximately one percent of imported products from its other domestic suppliers in 2008 and approximately two percent in 2009. SUAR 241-293, 477, 480, 507-508.
This new survey information was used to determine total import impact. To identify the relevance of the information collected from the suppliers of the customer during this remand investigation, the Department revised the survey analysis to show results to include the new import information. SUAR 507-508. Specifically, the results now include the missing response to question #2 on the customer survey form—imported purchases made from domestic firms. SUAR 507-508.
The updated information that includes indirect imports (“direct imports” refer to imports by the customers of Weather Shield and “indirect imports” refer to imports by the other domestic suppliers of Weather Shield's customers) shows that total imports of the customer's of the subject firm declined from 2008 to 2009 and that indirect imports increased by one percent during the relevant time period. SUAR 507-508. The negligible increase in imports by the suppliers could not have contributed importantly to a decline in employment and sales or production at the subject firm.
The third remand investigation revealed that the subject firm's sales and production increased October 2008 through September 2009, and that the information provided by the subject firm could be relied upon by the Department.
Based on a careful review of previously submitted information and new information obtained during this remand investigation, the Department determines that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm did not contribute importantly to subject
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate Office, Medford, Wisconsin.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor underSection 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and areidentified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of thesepetitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at theaddress shown below, not later than January 14, 2013.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the addressshown below, not later than January 14, 2013.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and areidentified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of thesepetitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at theaddress shown below, not later than January 14, 2013.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the addressshown below, not later than January 14, 2013.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than January 14, 2013.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than January 14, 2013.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Energy Northwest (the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21, which authorizes operation of the Columbia Generating Station. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a boiling-water reactor located in Benton County in the state of Washington.
The regulations in paragraph 50.36a(a)(2) of Title 10 of the
The licensee's Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.2, “Radioactive Effluent Release Report,” requires the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (ARERR) to be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.36a as specified in the licensee's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The licensee's ODCM specifies the ARERR to be submitted within 60 days after January 1 of each calendar year. The licensee indicates this constitutes an undue administrative burden due to the compressed schedule for data collection, report preparation, and internal review following closure of the reporting period. As a result, the licensee wants to change the ODCM so that the report can be submitted prior to May 1 of each year. In order to implement this change to the ODCM, the licensee has requested a one-time exemption from the required 12-month reporting interval for the next required submittal of the ARERR for the Columbia Generating Station. This would result in a one-time allowance of an additional 2 months (i.e., a 14-month
In summary, the end result of this exemption would be that the time interval between the 2011 and the 2012 ARERRs (generated in March 2012 and May 2013) would be 14 months. This is a one-time exemption, and subsequent ARERRs, generated in 2014 and beyond, would be subject to the 12-month interval specified in 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. These circumstances include the special circumstances that would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulations.
This exemption would allow the time interval between the 2011 and the 2012 ARERRs (generated in March 2012 and May 2013 respectively) to be increased to 14 months. This is a one-time exemption, and subsequent ARERRs, generated in 2014 and beyond, would be subject to the 12-month interval specified in 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2). As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2). The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The underlying purposes of 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2) is to ensure that once each year, prior to a specified date, the licensee submits an ARERR to the NRC that specifies (1) the principal radionuclides released in liquid and gaseous effluents, (2) the amounts of each radionuclide released, and (3) other such information that may be required by the NRC to estimate doses to members of the public in the unrestricted areas during the previous calendar year. The proposed exemption only changes the date the ARERR would be submitted to the NRC, but does not change any of the information presented in the ARERR.
Based on the above, no new accident precursors are created by extending the submittal date for the next ARERR (from prior to March 1) to prior to May 1, thus, the probability of postulated accidents is not increased. Also, based on the above, the consequences of postulated accidents are not increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety.
The proposed exemption would extend the time interval between the 2011 and the 2012 ARERRs (generated in March 2012 and May 2013, respectively) to 14 months. This is a one-time exemption, and subsequent ARERRs, generated in 2014 and beyond, would be subject to the 12-month interval specified in 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2). This change to the date the ARERR is submitted to the NRC has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. The requested exemption asks for a one-time relaxation of the 12-month ARERR reporting requirement. Therefore, the relief is temporary. The licensee has submitted an annual report at the 12-month reporting interval every year since 1985. The NRC staff agrees submitting the report within 60 days of January 1 may present an undue administrative burden due to the necessary data collection, report preparation, and internal review. The licensee agrees to submit the report, in its entirety, within 2 months of the required 12-month reporting interval. In addition, ARERRs generated in 2014 and beyond, would be subject to the 12-month interval specified in 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2) with ARERRs being submitted prior to May 1 of each year. As a result, the NRC staff concludes the licensee has made a good faith effort to comply with the regulation. Therefore, since the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2) is achieved, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v) for the granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2) exist.
This exemption authorizes a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2) for the CGS. The NRC staff has determined that this exemption involves no significant hazards considerations:
(1) The proposed exemption is limited to a one-time 2-month extension for submittal of the 2012 ARERR. The proposed exemption does not make any changes to the facility or operating procedures and does not alter the design, function or operation of any plant equipment. Therefore, issuance of this exemption does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) The proposed exemption is limited to a one-time 2-month extension for submittal of the 2012 ARERR. The proposed exemption does not make any changes to the facility or operating procedures and would not create any new accident initiators. The proposed exemption does not alter the design, function or operation of any plant equipment. Therefore, this exemption does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed exemption is limited to a one-time 2-month extension for submittal of the 2012 ARERR. The proposed exemption does not alter the design, function or operation of any plant equipment. Therefore, this exemption does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has also determined that the exemption involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent that may be released offsite; there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; there is no significant construction impact; and there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from a radiological accident. Furthermore, the requirement from which the licensee will be exempted involves reporting requirements. Accordingly, the exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Energy Northwest a one-time exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.36a(a)(2) to submit the 2012 ARERR prior to May 1, 2013, for the Columbia Generating Station.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35, which authorizes operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of a boiling-water reactor located in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Title 10 of the
Based on discussions with FEMA and MEMA representatives, the licensee does not consider it feasible to schedule and perform a full participation biennial exercise prior to the end of calendar year (CY) 2012. In an email from FEMA to the licensee dated November 26, 2012, FEMA Region I acknowledged agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that offsite portions of the Pilgrim biennial exercise can be scheduled for and conducted on March 21, 2013. The email was submitted as an attachment to the licensee's application dated November 29, 2012.
The onsite portion of the exercise was conducted as scheduled on November 7, 2012, and was inspected by the NRC under Inspection Procedure No. 71114.01. The NRC's inspection of the licensee's conduct and self-evaluation of the exercise identified no findings. Out-of-sequence demonstrations for various schools, daycare centers, special facilities, and camps were also conducted and evaluated during FEMA Region I staff visits between the months of July 2012 and September 2012, in accordance with the November 2012 biennial exercise objectives and extent of play. In addition, the following out-of-sequence demonstrations were evaluated by FEMA Region I since the previous PNPS Biennial Exercise conducted on November 16, 2010:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, when: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present.
This exemption would allow the licensee and offsite response organizations to accommodate Hurricane Sandy's impact upon their resources by postponing the offsite portion of the exercise from the previously scheduled date of November 7, 2012, until March 2013.
As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E. The NRC has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, is to ensure that licensees test and maintain interfaces among themselves and affected State and local authorities during the intervals between biennial exercises by conducting emergency preparedness activities and interactions. In order to accommodate the scheduling of full participation exercises, the NRC has allowed licensees to schedule the exercises at any time during the calendar biennium. Conducting the remaining offsite portions of the PNPS
The NRC has determined that no new accident precursors are created by allowing the licensee to postpone the selected offsite portions of the exercise from CY 2012 until March 2013. Further, the probability and consequences of postulated accidents are not increased. Therefore, the exemption does not create undue risk to public health and safety.
The proposed exemption would allow rescheduling of the specific offsite portions of the biennial EP exercise from the previously scheduled date of November 7, 2012, until March 2013. This change to the EP exercise schedule has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
In order to grant exemptions in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, special circumstances must be present. Special circumstances as described in 10 CFR 50.12 that apply to this exemption request are stated in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) and (v). Special circumstances, per 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present when: “Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.” Section IV.F.2.c of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E requires licensees to exercise offsite plans biennially with full or partial participation by each offsite authority having a role under the plan. The underlying purposes of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, requiring licensees to exercise offsite plans with offsite authority participation, is to test and maintain interfaces among affected State and local authorities and the licensee. No deficiencies were identified by FEMA during the previous PNPS biennial exercise, conducted on November 16, 2010, as documented in the PNPS After Action Report/Improvement Plan, published by FEMA on January 26, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11223A279).
Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), special circumstances are present whenever the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. Since the previous biennial exercise on November 16, 2010, the licensee has conducted two full-scale combined functional drills/dryruns involving onsite and offsite functions in preparation for the scheduled November 7, 2012 biennial exercise, as well as, numerous documented training evolutions that involved interface with State and local authorities in 2011 and 2012. The NRC considers that these measures are adequate to test and maintain interfaces with affected State and local authorities during this period, satisfying the underlying purpose of the rule. As such, the NRC considers the licensee to have made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. Also, the requested exemption to conduct the offsite portion of the PNPS Biennial Exercise in March 2013 instead of CY 2012 would grant only temporary relief from the applicable regulation. Therefore, since the underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, is achieved, the licensee has made a good faith effort to comply with the regulation, and the exemption would grant only temporary relief from the applicable regulation. The special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii and v) exist for the granting of an exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present consistent with 10 CFR 50.12. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, to conduct the offsite portion of the PNPS Biennial Exercise required for 2012, permitting that part of the exercise to be conducted in coordination with NRC Region I, FEMA, and PNPS schedules by the end of March 2013.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (77 FR 76541, December 28, 2012).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On October 25, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade Shares of the Fund pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, Commentary .02.
The net assets of the Fund will consist of (a) investments in futures contracts for Asian commodities (collectively, “Futures Contracts”) that are traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”), Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”), the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”), Commodity Exchange, Inc. (“COMEX”), ICE Futures US (“ICE US”), ICE Futures Canada (“ICE Canada”), ICE Futures Europe (“ICE Europe”), London Metal Exchange (“LME”), Tokyo Commodity Exchange (“TOCOM”), Dubai Mercantile Exchange (“DME”), and Bursa Malaysia (“Malaysia”) (each a “Futures Exchange” and collectively, “Futures Exchanges”), and (b) if applicable, other Asian commodities-related investments such as exchange-listed, cash-settled options on Futures Contracts, forward contracts for Asian commodities, cleared swap contracts, and over-the-counter transactions that are based on the price of Asian commodities, Futures Contracts, and indices based on the foregoing (collectively, “Other Asian Commodities-Related Investments” and, together with Futures Contracts, “Asian Commodities Interests”). The Fund will also invest in short-term obligations of the United States of two years or less (“Treasuries”), cash, and cash equivalents for margining purposes and as collateral.
The Fund will invest in Asian Commodities Interests, to the fullest extent possible, without being leveraged or unable to satisfy its current or potential margin and/or collateral obligations with respect to its investments in Futures Contracts and Other Asian Commodities-Related Investments.
The investment objective of the Fund (before fees and expenses) will be to have the daily changes in percentage terms of its net asset value (“NAV”) reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the price of a basket (“Futures Basket”) of Futures Contracts selected by the Sponsor (“Benchmark Futures Contracts”), each of which tracks one of the Asian Benchmark Commodities. The “Asian Benchmark Commodities” will be commodities selected by the Sponsor
• First, the physical commodity must be one in which the economies of China, Japan, and India annually consume 10% or more of global consumption based on publically available industry and government statistics.
• Second, the physical commodity must be one in which, based on publically available industry and government statistics, China, Japan, and India annually produce less of the commodity than they typically consume, indicating that they are likely to be net importers of the commodity and not net exporters.
• Third, the Futures Contracts on the physical commodity must be traded on a regulated Futures Exchange in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Dubai, Malaysia, or other domicile which allows a U.S. domiciled passive investment fund to buy and sell such contracts.
• Fourth and finally, the Futures Contracts traded on such commodities must have average open interest measured in U.S. dollars in excess of $150 million at the time of the commodity's selection. In the event the same or substantially similar physical contract is traded on more than one Futures Exchange, the minimum liquidity test will be applied to the exchange with the largest open interest U.S. dollar terms in that particular commodity.
The Asian Benchmark Commodities will be selected by the Sponsor in accordance with the above specific quantitative data. In the first quarter of each calendar year, the Sponsor will reevaluate the selection of Asian Benchmark Commodities based on the prior year's data. As a result of changes in Asian commodity production, commodity consumption, net imports or exports of commodities, and changes in commodity futures contract liquidity, and in strict accordance with the criteria and factors listed above, the Sponsor may elect to add or delete a commodity from the list of Asian Benchmark Commodities, and thus the Futures Basket.
From time to time throughout the year, it is possible that the Sponsor may determine that a Futures Contract that is currently a Benchmark Futures Contract is no longer suitable due to changes in the liquidity of the Futures Contract or due to changes in the rules regarding that particular Futures Contract on its
The Benchmark Futures Contracts may trade on any of the Futures Exchanges. It is not the intent of the Fund to be operated in a fashion such that its NAV will equal, in dollar terms, the spot price of any particular commodity or any particular Benchmark Futures Contract. It is not the intent of the Fund to be operated in a fashion such that its NAV will reflect the percentage change of the price of the Futures Basket as measured over a time period greater than one day. The Sponsor does not believe that is an achievable goal due to the potential impact of backwardation and contango on returns of any portfolio of futures contracts.
The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing in Futures Contracts and, if applicable, Other Asian Commodities-Related Investments such that the daily changes in the Fund's NAV will closely track changes in the daily price of the Futures Basket. The Sponsor believes changes in the price of the Benchmark Futures Contracts have historically exhibited a close correlation with the changes in the price of the corresponding Asian Benchmark Commodities. On any valuation day (a valuation day is any NYSE Arca trading day as of which the Fund calculates its NAV), each Benchmark Futures Contract will be the near month contract for the corresponding Asian Benchmark Commodity traded on the Futures Exchange where such Benchmark Futures Contract is listed, unless the near month contract will expire within four business days prior to the end of the month. Only the Benchmark Futures Contracts that will be reaching expiration in the upcoming month will be sold and the next Futures Contract for that commodity that expires later than the upcoming month, the next month contract, will be used to replace the contract being sold. Benchmark Futures Contracts which are not reaching expiration in the upcoming month will not be “rolled” forward.
The Fund will invest in Benchmark Futures Contracts to the fullest extent possible, turning next to investments in other Futures Contracts, and finally to Other Asian Commodities-Related Investments only if required to by applicable regulatory requirements or under adverse market conditions.
Imposition of, or changes in, accountability levels, position limits or fluctuation limits on futures contracts could constitute a regulatory requirement that would cause the Fund to invest in Futures Contracts or Other Asian Commodities-Related Investments other than Benchmark Futures Contracts. All of these limits may potentially cause a tracking error between the price of the Shares and the price of the Futures Basket. This may in turn prevent investors from being able to effectively use the Fund as a way to hedge against Asian commodities-related losses or as a way to indirectly invest in Asian commodities.
More specifically, if applicable regulatory requirements or adverse market conditions make investing in Benchmark Futures Contracts impracticable, the Fund would then invest to the fullest extent possible in other Futures Contracts that, while relating to the same commodity and trading on the same Futures Exchange as a Benchmark Futures Contract, have a different expiration date. If and when investing in such other Futures Contracts becomes impracticable because of regulatory requirements or adverse market conditions, the Fund would then invest to the fullest extent possible in Futures Contracts that, while relating to the same commodity as the corresponding Benchmark Futures Contract, are traded on a different futures exchange. Only when the Fund has invested in Benchmark Futures Contracts and other Futures Contracts to the fullest extent possible in the manner described above will it then invest in Other Asian Commodities-Related Investments.
The Sponsor will endeavor to place the Fund's trades in Asian Commodities Interests and otherwise manage the Fund's investments so that “A” will be within plus/minus 10 percent of “B,” where:
• A is the average daily percentage change in the Fund's NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days (
• B is the average daily percentage change in the price of the Futures Basket over the same period.
The current Asian Benchmark Commodities, the Sponsor's estimate of the percentage of global production and consumption for each commodity that is attributable to China, Japan, and India combined, and the current assigned base weight of each commodity for use in the Futures Basket are shown in the table below.
A list of the current Benchmark Futures Contracts and their weighting in the Futures Basket is shown in the table below.
The Sponsor believes that market arbitrage opportunities will cause daily changes in the Fund's Share price on the Exchange to closely track daily changes in the Fund's NAV per Share. The Sponsor believes that the net effect of this expected relationship and the expected relationship described above between the Fund's NAV and the Futures Basket will be that the daily changes in the price of the Fund's Shares on the Exchange will closely track in percentage terms, changes in the Futures Basket less the Fund's expenses.
The Sponsor will employ a “neutral” investment strategy intended to track the changes in the Futures Basket regardless of whether the price goes up or goes down. The Fund's “neutral” investment strategy is designed to permit investors generally to purchase and sell the Fund's Shares for the purpose of trading indirectly in the commodities market in a cost-effective manner, and/or to permit participants in the commodities or other industries to hedge the risk of losses in their Asian Commodities Interests. Accordingly, depending on the investment objective of an individual investor, the risks generally associated with investing in the Asian commodities market and/or the risks involved in hedging may exist. In addition, an investment in the Fund involves the risk that the changes in the price of the Fund's Shares will not accurately track changes in the Futures Basket and that changes in the Benchmark Futures Contracts will not closely correlate with changes in the prices of the corresponding Asian Benchmark Commodities. Furthermore, the Fund will also hold Treasuries, cash, and/or cash equivalents to meet its current or potential margin or collateral requirements with respect to its investments in Asian Commodities Interests and invest cash not required to be used as margin or collateral. The Fund does not expect there to be any meaningful correlation between the performance of the Fund's investments in Treasuries, cash, and/or cash equivalents and the changes in the prices of commodities or Asian Commodities Interests. While the level of interest earned on or the market price of these investments may in some respect correlate to changes in the prices of commodities, this correlation is not anticipated as part of the Fund's efforts to meet its objective.
Each month, the Benchmark Futures Contracts will change, starting four business days prior to the end of the month. Only the near month Benchmark Futures Contracts that will be reaching expiration in the upcoming month will be sold. The next Benchmark Futures Contract for the relevant Asian Benchmark Commodity that expires later than the upcoming month, the “next month contract,” will be used to replace the Benchmark Futures Contract being sold. Near month Benchmark Futures Contracts which are not reaching expiration in the upcoming month will not be “rolled” forward. During the first three days of such period, the applicable value of each Benchmark Futures Contract being rolled forward will be based on a combination of the corresponding near month contract and the next month contract as follows:
(1) Day 1 will consist of 75% of the then near month contract's total return for the day, plus 25% of the total return for the day of the next month contract,
(2) Day 2 will consist of 50% of the then near month contract's total return for the day, plus 50% of the total return for the day of the next month contract, and
(3) Day 3 will consist of 25% of the then near month contract's total return for the day, plus 75% of the total return for the day of the next month contract.
The Sponsor will attempt to manage the credit risk of the Fund by following certain trading limitations and policies. In particular, the Fund intends to post margin and collateral and/or hold liquid assets that will be equal to approximately the face amount of the Asian Commodity Interests it holds. The Sponsor will implement procedures that will include, but will not be limited to, executing and clearing trades and entering into over-the-counter transactions only with parties it deems creditworthy and/or requiring the posting of collateral by such parties for the benefit of the Fund to limit its credit exposure. To reduce the credit risk that arises in connection with over-the-counter derivative contracts, the Fund will generally enter into an agreement with each counterparty based on the Master Agreement published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) that provides for the netting of its overall exposure to its counterparty.
The creditworthiness of each potential counterparty will be assessed by the Sponsor. The Sponsor will assess or review, as appropriate, the creditworthiness of each potential or existing counterparty to an over-the-counter contract pursuant to guidelines approved by the Sponsor. Furthermore, the Sponsor on behalf of the Fund will only enter into over-the-counter contracts with counterparties who are, or are affiliates of, (a) Banks regulated by a United States federal bank regulator, (b) broker-dealers regulated by the Commission, (c) insurance companies domiciled in the United States, and (d) producers, users, or traders of commodities, whether or not regulated by the CFTC. Existing counterparties will be reviewed periodically by the Sponsor. The Fund also may require that the counterparty be highly rated and/or provide collateral or other credit support.
A more detailed description of the Fund and the Shares, as well as of the investment strategies and risks, creation and redemption procedures, and fees, among other things, is included in the Notice and the Registration Statement, as applicable.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. If the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants. Further, the Exchange represents that it may halt trading during the day in which an interruption to the dissemination of the IFV, the value of the Futures Basket, or the value of the underlying Futures Contracts occurs. If the interruption persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. The Exchange may halt trading in the Shares if trading is not occurring in the underlying futures contracts, or if other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present.
The Exchange represents that the Shares are deemed to be equity
(1) The Fund and the Shares will meet the initial and continued listing requirements applicable to Trust Issued Receipts in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 and Commentary .02 thereto.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) The Exchange's surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products, which include Trust Issued Receipts, are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (a) The risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IFV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (b) the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in creation baskets and redemption baskets (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (c) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (d) how information regarding the IFV is disseminated; (e) that a static IFV will be disseminated, between the close of trading on the applicable Futures Exchange and the close of the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session; (f) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (g) trading information.
(5) With respect to application of Rule 10A-3 under the Act,
(6) The Asian Benchmark Commodities will be selected by the Sponsor in accordance with the above four specific quantitative criteria. In the first quarter of each calendar year, the Sponsor will reevaluate the selection of Asian Benchmark Commodities based on the prior year's data. As a result of changes in Asian commodity production, commodity consumption, net imports or exports of commodities, and changes in commodity futures contract liquidity, and in strict accordance with the criteria and factors set forth above, the Sponsor may elect to add or delete a commodity from the list of Asian Benchmark Commodities, and thus the Futures Basket. In making any such change, the Sponsor will file a prospectus supplement informing investors of the proposed changes no less than 30 days prior to the first month in which the commodity or commodities added will become part of the Asian Benchmark Commodities, or 30 days prior to the first month in which the commodity or commodities deleted will no longer be part of the Asian Benchmark Commodities. Any changes to the eligible Asian Benchmark Commodities will also be published on the Web site for the Fund.
(7) The Fund will invest in Benchmark Futures Contracts to the fullest extent possible, turning next to investments in other Futures Contracts, and finally to Other Asian Commodities-Related Investments only if required to by applicable regulatory requirements or in adverse market conditions, each as described herein. The Sponsor represents that the Fund will invest in Asian Commodities Interests in a manner consistent with the Fund's investment objective and not to achieve additional leverage.
(8) With respect to the Fund's investments in Futures Contracts traded on exchanges, not more than 10% of the weight of such Futures Contracts in the aggregate shall consist of components whose principal trading market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(9) The Sponsor will attempt to manage the credit risk of the Fund by following certain trading limitations and policies, including, but not limited to the following: (a) The Fund intends to post margin and collateral and/or hold liquid assets that will be equal to approximately the face amount of the Asian Commodity Interests it holds; (b) the Sponsor will implement procedures that will include, but will not be limited to, executing and clearing trades and entering into over-the-counter transactions only with parties it deems creditworthy and/or requiring the posting of collateral by such parties for the benefit of the Fund to limit its credit exposure; and (c) with respect to over-the-counter derivative contracts, the Fund will generally enter into an agreement with each counterparty based on the Master Agreement published by ISDA that provides for the netting of its overall exposure to its counterparty.
(10) In addition, the Sponsor will assess or review, as appropriate, the creditworthiness of each potential or existing counterparty to an over-the-counter contract pursuant to guidelines approved by the Sponsor. Furthermore, the Sponsor on behalf of the Fund will only enter into over-the-counter contracts with counterparties who are, or are affiliates of, (a) banks regulated by a United States federal bank regulator, (b) broker-dealers regulated by the Commission, (c) insurance companies domiciled in the United States, and (d) producers, users, or traders of commodities, whether or not regulated by the CFTC. Existing counterparties will be reviewed periodically by the Sponsor. The Fund also may require that the counterparty be highly rated and/or provide collateral or other credit support.
(11) A minimum of 100,000 Shares of the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
NSCC proposes to modify its Rules & Procedures (“Rules”) to eliminate the offset of NSCC obligations with institutional delivery (“ID”) transactions that settle at the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) for the purpose of calculating the NSCC clearing fund (“Clearing Fund”) under Procedure XV of the Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
A primary objective of NSCC's Clearing Fund is to have on deposit from each applicable Member assets sufficient to satisfy losses that may otherwise be incurred by NSCC as the result of the default of the Member and the resultant close out of that Member's unsettled positions under NSCC's trade guaranty. Each Member's Clearing Fund required deposit is calculated daily pursuant to a formula set forth in Procedure XV of the Rules designed to provide sufficient funds to cover this risk of loss. The Clearing Fund formula accounts for a variety of risk factors through the application of a number of components, each described in Procedure XV.
The Value-at-Risk component, or “VaR”, is a core component of this formula and is designed to calculate the amount of money that may be lost on a portfolio over a given period of time assumed necessary to liquidate the portfolio, within a given level of confidence.
Pursuant to Procedure XV of the Rules, NSCC may calculate the VaR and MMDOM components of a Member's Clearing Fund requirement after taking into account any offsetting pending (i.e., non-fail) ID transactions that have been confirmed and/or affirmed through an institutional delivery system acceptable to NSCC (typically Omgeo LLC (“Omgeo”), a joint venture of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation and Thomson Reuters) (“ID Offset”).
NSCC reviews its risk management processes against federal securities laws and rulemaking promulgated by the Commission, and applicable regulatory and industry guidelines, including, but not limited to the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures (“PFMI”) of the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“CPSS-IOSCO”).
The parties involved in an institutional trade include the institutional investor (such as mutual funds, insurance companies, hedge funds, bank trust departments, and pension funds), the investment manager (who enters trade orders on behalf of institutional investors), the buying broker and the selling broker, and custodian banks.
Before ID trades are sent to DTC, where they settle delivery versus payment, the trade allocation details are matched between the executing broker and the institutional investor. After an executing broker has provided a final notice of execution associated with the client's order, most institutional clients will provide trade allocation details to the executing broker using a service provided by Omgeo. When the executing broker accepts and processes the trade allocations, an electronic confirmation is provided through Omgeo's TradeSuite service to the institutional investor or its agent (typically the institutional client's custodian bank) for affirmation. Omgeo links with the various parties to institutional trades to provide real-time central matching capabilities, electronically comparing trade details and notifying parties of any exceptions. After the trade allocation details are affirmed, the trade is considered matched and institutional delivery details are sent to DTC for settlement.
Completion of the money and securities settlement of institutional trades occurs at DTC. Because investment managers are not participants of and do not have direct accounts at DTC, their securities are held in custodial accounts with banks who are participants at DTC. Therefore, when the institutional delivery details for confirmed and affirmed ID trades are sent to DTC from Omgeo, the delivering investment manager's custodian bank, or broker, as the case may be, must authorize the delivery, generating a deliver order that will settle in accordance with DTC's rules.
NSCC Risk Management receives a daily feed from Omgeo, including both ID trades that have only been confirmed as well as those that have also been affirmed. For purposes of the ID Offset, NSCC includes ID trades that are confirmed and/or affirmed on trade date (T) and those ID trades which have been affirmed on T+1 and remain affirmed through settlement date (SD).
Procedure XV currently allows for a Member's net unsettled NSCC position in a particular CUSIP to be compared to any pending ID transactions settling at DTC for potential offset for purposes of calculating the VaR and the MMDOM components of a Member's Clearing Fund requirement, defined as the ID Offset. The ID Offset is based on the assumption that, in the event of a Member insolvency, NSCC will be able to close out any trades for which there is a corresponding ID transaction settling at DTC by completing that ID transaction. Therefore, the VaR and the MMDOM components are calculated after taking into account any offsetting pending (i.e., non-fail) ID transactions that have been confirmed and/or affirmed, reducing the Clearing Fund requirement for those Members with ID transactions. ID transactions are included in the ID Offset only if they are on the opposite side of the market from the Member's net NSCC position (i.e., only if they reduce that net position).
Generally, when NSCC ceases to act for a Member, it is obligated, for those transactions to which the trade guaranty has attached, to pay for deliveries made by non-defaulting Members that are due, through CNS, to the failed Member (“Long Allocations”) on the day of insolvency and the days following. As described above, the current calculation of the VaR and MMDOM components of NSCC's Clearing Fund are based on the assumption that, in the event of a Member default, NSCC will be able to complete the pending ID transactions that were used to offset that Member's unsettled NSCC position. If NSCC is unable to complete the ID transactions as contemplated by this calculation, then NSCC may need to liquidate a portfolio that could be substantially different than the portfolio that NSCC collected Clearing Fund for, leaving NSCC potentially under collateralized and exposed to market risk.
There are a number of reasons why NSCC may not be able to complete an insolvent Member's open ID transactions. First, NSCC does not guarantee ID transactions and completion of these transactions by the counterparty of the ID transaction, which is not a Member of NSCC, is voluntary. Further, the institutional customer is not a Member of NSCC, is not bound by NSCC's Rules, and is not party to any legally binding contract with NSCC that requires the institutional customer or its custodian to complete the transaction. Finally, based on news that a Member may be in distress or insolvent, the institutional customer or its investment advisor may feel compelled to take immediate market action with respect to the institutional buy or sell transaction, in order to reduce its market risk; this effectively eliminates the option for NSCC to complete these transactions, either entirely or on the timetable assumed by the Clearing Fund calculation.
While NSCC's Risk Management systems net ID transactions by CUSIP across all settlement days for the purposes of the ID Offset, ID transactions settle trade by trade between the executing broker and the custodian. As a result, the netted ID position used to offset the NSCC position could potentially be comprised of thousands of individual trades with hundreds of different counterparties. It would be time consuming for NSCC to contact each counterparty individually to get their agreement to complete ID transactions, which would delay the determination of the portfolio requiring liquidation in the event of a cease to act, and thus hold up the prompt close out of the defaulter's open positions, exposing NSCC to additional market risk not covered by the margin collected.
Following Commission approval, in order to mitigate the impact of this proposed rule change, NSCC proposes to implement the changes set forth in this filing on over an 18-month period. On a date no earlier than 10 days
Beginning on a date approximately 12 months from the Initial Implementation Date, and no earlier than 10 days following notice to Members by Important Notice, NSCC will eliminate from the ID Offset all affirmed ID transactions that have reached settlement date at the time the Clearing Fund calculations are run. Three months later, or approximately 15 months following the Initial Implementation Date, and on a date no earlier than 10 days following notice to Members by Important Notice, NSCC will eliminate from the ID Offset all affirmed ID transactions that have reached either settlement date or the day prior to settlement date. Finally, on a date approximately 18 months following the Initial Implementation Date, and no earlier than 10 days following notice to Members by Important Notice, NSCC will eliminate the ID Offset entirely for all ID transactions. Members will be advised of each proposed implementation date through issuance of NSCC Important Notices, which are publically available at
The table below illustrates this proposed implementation schedule:
NSCC proposes to amend Procedure XV to eliminate the ID Offset from calculation of the VaR and Market Maker Domination components of a Member's Clearing Fund requirement as currently provided for in, with respect to CNS transactions, Section I(A)(1)(a)(i) and Section I(A)(1)(d), and, with respect to Balance Order transactions, Section I(A)(2)(a)(i) and Section I(A)(2)(c).
(b) As a central counterparty, NSCC occupies an important role in the securities settlement system by interposing itself between counterparties to financial transactions and thereby reducing the risk faced by participants and contributing to global financial stability. In this role, however, NSCC is necessarily subject to certain risks in the event of the default or failure of a Member. NSCC believes that the proposed rule change should help mitigate the risk that NSCC will be under collateralized when it ceases to act for that Member and is unable to complete the Member's ID transactions in the time frame contemplated by its Clearing Fund calculation. As such, NSCC believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, specifically Section 17A(b)(3)(F),
NSCC believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The rule change will mitigate the market risk that may arise after NSCC has ceased to act for that Member if it is unable to complete the ID transactions in the time frame contemplated by its Clearing Fund calculation, leaving NSCC potentially under collateralized. By mitigating its exposure to this market risk, NSCC believes that the proposed rule change should contribute to the goal of financial stability in the event of Member default, and will render not unreasonable or inappropriate any burden on competition that the changes could be regarded as imposing.
Further, NSCC intends to implement this rule change over an extended period of time, as described herein, allowing Members to address any impact this change may have on their business. This implementation schedule is designed to be fair and not disproportionately impact any Members more than others, and the proposal to implement this rule change over an extended period of time will provide all impacted Members with time to identify mechanisms to mitigate the impact of this proposal on their business.
While written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited, NSCC has received a letter on behalf of certain Members seeking further review of the impact of the proposed rule change, and consideration of alternatives. NSCC notified the Commission of the contents of the letter and promptly delivered a response to those Members addressing their concerns. A Member working group has been established to discuss mechanisms for impacted Members to
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
DTC is proposing to change the current Largest Provisional Net Credit (“LPNC”) risk management control in order to increase withholding from one to two largest provisional credits (on an acronym
In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
MMI presentment processing is initiated automatically by DTC each morning for MMIs maturing that day. The automatic process electronically sweeps all maturing positions of MMI
Without regard to DTC net settlement, MMI issuers and IPAs commonly view the primary source of funding of payments for Maturity Obligations of MMIs as flowing from new issuances of MMIs in the same acronym by that issuer on that day. In a situation where those new issuances exceed the Maturity Obligations, the issuer would have no net funds payment due to the IPA on that day. However, because Maturity Obligations of MMIs are processed automatically at DTC, IPAs currently may nevertheless refuse to pay for all of an issuer's maturities. An IPA that refuses payment on an MMI must communicate its intention to DTC using the DTC Participant Terminal/Browser Service (“PTS/PBS”) MMRP function. This communication is referred to as an Issuer Failure/Refusal to Pay (“RTP”) and it allows the Paying Agent to enter a refusal to pay instruction for a particular issuer acronym up to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”) on the date of the affected maturity or income presentment. Such an instruction will cause DTC, pursuant to its Rules, to reverse all transactions related to any new issuances in that issuer's acronym, including the Maturity Obligations, posing a potential for systemic risk since the reversals may override DTC's risk management controls (e.g., collateral monitor
To mitigate the risks associated with an RTP, DTC employs the LPNC risk management control. On each processing day, DTC withholds intraday credit from each MMI Participant for the largest credit with respect to an issuer's acronym, for purposes of calculating the Participant's net settlement balance and collateral monitor. As such, this single largest credit is provisional and is not included in the calculation of the Participant's collateral monitor or in the settlement balance measured against its net debit cap. The LPNC control protects DTC against (i) either the single largest issuer failure on a business day, or (ii) multiple failures on a business day that, taken together, do not exceed the largest provisional net credit.
Maturity payment procedures were designed to limit credit, liquidity, and operational risk for DTC and Participants in the MMI program. In an effort to further mitigate these risks, DTC is proposing the following changes to current processing associated with (1) the LPNC control and (2) limiting intraday MMI reversals under specified conditions:
DTC is proposing to change the current LPNC risk management control in order to increase withholding from one to two largest provisional credits (on an acronym basis). DTC believes this will provide increased risk protection in the event of transaction reversals due to multiple issuer defaults or a single issuer default with two or more MMI programs.
DTC has conducted a simulation analysis to measure the impact to IPAs and custodians/dealers of an increase in LPNC controls from one to two on settlement blockage
DTC is also proposing to modify its Rules as they relate to the refusal to pay process. As planned, DTC will not permit reversal of a transaction when issuances of MMIs in an acronym exceed, in dollar value, the Maturity Obligations of MMIs in the same acronym on the same day. In such instances, DTC will not permit reversal of the transactions because the IPA would have no reason to exercise the refusal to pay for that acronym on that settlement day. As a result, at the point in time when issuances of MMIs in an acronym exceed, in dollar value, the Maturity Obligations of the MMIs in the same acronym on that day, DTC will remove the LPNC control with respect to the affected acronym.
DTC believes the proposed changes will provide additional risk protection to DTC and the financial system as a whole. DTC has discussed this proposal with various industry groups, including the Participants that transact in MMIs, and DTC received no objections to the proposal. The Participants understand that the elimination of intraday reversals when issuances exceed Maturity Obligations will result in no material change in transaction blockage.
DTC believes the proposed changes should mitigate risk associated with MMI transaction reversals due to an IPA refusal to pay instruction. Additionally, DTC believes the proposed changes should promote settlement finality by precluding reversals for those issuances. DTC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, specifically Section 17A(b)(3)(F),
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
The subject proposal regarding MMIs was developed in consultation with various industry organizations. Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 12 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective February 5, 2013. Comments must be received on or before February 4, 2013.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [FMCSA-2008-0340], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from
This notice addresses 12 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 12 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 12 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (73 FR 75803; 74 FR 6209; 76 FR 4413). Each of these 12 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by February 4, 2013.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 12 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 3 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective February 7, 2013. Comments must be received on or before February 4, 2013.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2006-24015], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 3 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 3 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) By an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 3 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR 30285; 63 FR 54519; 65 FR 66293; 67 FR 68719; 68 FR 1654; 68 FR 2629; 69 FR 71098; 69 FR 71100; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 30227; 72 FR 1054; 74 FR 980; 76 FR 4414). Each of these 3 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by February 4, 2013.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 3 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comme