Food Safety and Inspection Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Technical Information Service
Under Secretary for Technology
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Transportation Security Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding four airworthiness directives related to the main rotor yoke (yoke) on the Bell Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 212 helicopters, to retain certain inspections and certain life limits, to require an increased inspection frequency for certain yokes, and to expand these inspections and retirement lives to other yokes. This airworthiness directive is prompted by past reports of cracks in the yoke, another recent report of a cracked yoke, and the decision that other yokes, approved based on identicality, need to be subject to the same inspection requirements and retirement lives. The actions are intended to detect a crack in a yoke to prevent failure of the yoke, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective February 27, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101, telephone (817) 280-3391, fax (817) 280-6466, or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 222-5170; email
On November 2, 2011, at 76 FR 67628, the
Since the issuance of those ADs, certain yokes manufactured under a parts manufacturer approval (PMA) were identified as being susceptible to the same cracking as the Bell manufactured yokes. The NPRM proposed retaining the requirements of the existing ADs while expanding the applicability to include yokes produced under a PMA whose design approval was based on identicality with the affected Bell yoke. The NPRM also proposed giving operators credit for the accumulated operating time on certain yokes covered by the superseded ADs.
The proposed requirements of this AD were intended to prevent cracking of a yoke, failure of the yoke, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (76 FR 67628, November 2, 2011).
Bell issued Alert Service Bulletins (ASBs) Nos. 204-92-36, 205-92-51, and 212-92-80, all dated October 23, 1992. These ASBs specify replacing yoke P/N 204-011-102 (all dash numbers) by December 31, 1993, with yoke P/N 212-011-102-105 or -109, depending on the helicopter configuration. The replacement yokes are made from stainless steel and have improved design characteristics that address the corrosion problems and are not subject to any heavy lift cycle counting required for previous yokes installed on the Model 205B and 212 helicopters.
We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for minor editorial changes and a change to correct one instance of the word “Unfactored” to the word “Factored.” In addition, the notes were removed to prevent any misconception that they were mandatory procedures. These minor editorial changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 15 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Reviewing the helicopter records and determining the total factored hours TIS will require about 3 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, for a total cost of $255 per helicopter and a total cost to the U.S. operator fleet of $3,825. Removing the yoke from the helicopter and performing a visual inspection and MPI will require about 35 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour, for a total cost of $2,975 per helicopter and a total cost to the U.S. operator fleet of $44,625 per inspection cycle.
To replace a yoke will require about 32 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per hour for labor costs of $2,720 per helicopter, and required parts will cost $40,157 for a total cost per helicopter of $42,877 and a total cost to the U.S. operator fleet of $643,155.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 212 helicopters, with a main rotor yoke (yoke), part number (P/N) AAI-4011-102 (all dash numbers), ASI-4011-102 (all dash numbers), or 204-011-102 (all dash numbers), installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a yoke. This condition could result in failure of a yoke, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD supersedes AD 93-05-01, Amendment 39-8507 (58 FR 13700, March 15, 1993); AD 81-19-02, Amendment 39-4208 (46 FR 45595, September 14, 1981; AD 81-19-01, Amendment 39-4207 (46 FR 45595, September 14, 1981); and AD 79-20-05, Amendments 39-3662 (45 FR 6922, January 31, 1980), 39-3626 (44 FR 70123, December 6, 1979), and 39-3572 (44 FR 55556, September 27, 1979).
This AD becomes effective February 27, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) For helicopters with yoke, P/N AAI-4011-102 (all dash numbers) and ASI-4011-102 (all dash numbers), installed, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS):
(i) Create a component history card or equivalent record for each yoke.
(ii) Determine the model for each helicopter on which the yoke has been installed from the time the yoke had zero hours TIS.
(iii) In accordance with the rate per hour categories shown in Table 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD, categorize the accumulated “Factored Hours TIS” on each yoke by determining the types of operation AND the rate per hour of external load lifts for each hour TIS accumulated on each yoke. One external load lift occurs each time the helicopter picks up an external load and drops it off. For determining the proper rate per hour category for external load operations, any external load lift in which the helicopter achieves a vertical altitude difference of greater than 200 feet indicated altitude between the pickup and drop-off point counts as two external load lifts.
(iv) By reference to Table 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD, enter the “Unfactored Hours TIS” for each category as determined by paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this AD. Calculate the “Factored Hours TIS” by multiplying the “Unfactored Hours TIS” by the “Hours TIS Factor.” Determine the accumulated “Total Factored Hours TIS” on each yoke by adding the factored hours TIS for each type of operation and helicopter model. Tracking the Total Factored Hours TIS is only for establishing a retirement life and not for tracking inspection intervals.
(v) Record the accumulated Total Factored Hours TIS on the component history card or equivalent record for each yoke.
(vi) Continue to factor the hours TIS for each yoke by following paragraph (f)(1)(ii) through (f)(1)(iv) of this AD, and record the additional factored hours TIS on the component history card or equivalent record.
(2) For helicopters with yoke, P/N 204-011-102 (all dash numbers), installed, before further flight:
(i) For hours TIS accumulated before the effective date of this AD, calculate and record the Total Factored Hours TIS as follows:
(A) For the Model 212 helicopters, 1 hour TIS in which passenger or internal cargo was carried equals 1 factored hour TIS; 1 hour TIS where more than 4 external load lifts occurred equals 5 factored hours TIS.
(B) For the Model 204 and 205 series helicopters, 1 hour TIS equals 1 factored hour TIS.
(ii) For hours TIS accumulated after the effective date of this AD, calculate and record the factored hours TIS on the yoke in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) thorough (f)(1)(vi) of this AD.
(3) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the applicable maintenance manuals or the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICAs) by establishing a new retirement life of 3,600 Total Factored Hours TIS for each yoke, P/N AAI-4011-102 (all dash numbers), ASI-4011-102 (all dash numbers), or 204-011-102 (all dash numbers), by making pen and ink changes or inserting a copy of this AD into the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual or ICAs.
(4) Record a life limit of 3,600 Total Factored Hours TIS for each yoke, P/N AAI-4011-102 (all dash numbers), ASI-4011-102 (all dash numbers), or 204-011-102 (all dash numbers), on the component history card or equivalent record.
(5) Within 100 hours TIS or 600 hours TIS since the last magnetic particle inspection (MPI) of the yoke, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 hours TIS, for any yoke installed on any Model 205B or 212 helicopter:
(i) Remove the yoke from the main rotor hub assembly (hub). Using a 5-power or higher magnifying glass, visually inspect each pillow block bushing hole, spindle radius, and center section web for any corrosion or mechanical damage.
(ii) Perform an MPI of each yoke for a crack.
(6) Within 100 hours TIS or 2,400 hours TIS since the last MPI of the yoke, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,400 hours TIS, for any yoke installed on any Model 204B, 205A, or 205A-1 helicopter:
(i) Remove the yoke from the hub. Using a 5-power or higher magnifying glass, visually inspect each pillow block bushing hole, spindle radius, and center section web for any corrosion or mechanical damage.
(ii) Perform an MPI of each yoke for a crack.
(7) Before further flight, replace each yoke with an airworthy yoke if:
(i) The yoke has 3,600 or more Total Factored Hours TIS; or
(ii) The Total Factored Hours TIS for the yoke is unknown and cannot be determined; or
(iii) The yoke has any corrosion or mechanical damage that exceeds any of the maximum repair damage limits; or
(iv) The yoke has a crack.
Special flight permits may only be issued under 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 for the purpose of operating the helicopter to a location where the MPI requirements of paragraphs (f)(5) or (f)(6) of this AD can be performed.
(1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 222-5170; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
Bell Alert Service Bulletin Nos. 204-92-36, 205-92-51, and 212-92-80, all dated October 23, 1992, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101, telephone (817) 280-3391, fax (817) 280-6466, or at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220: Main Rotor Head.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Model 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting certain hydraulic servo actuator assemblies (servo) for a loose nut, shaft, and clevis assembly, modifying or replacing the servo as necessary, and reidentifying the servo. This AD is prompted by an investigation after an accident and the determination that there was a loose connection due to improper lock washer installation. These actions are intended to detect loose or misaligned parts of the servo to prevent failure of the servo and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective February 7, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document February 7, 2013.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 25, 2013.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at
Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) has issued AD No. CF-2011-19R1, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2011, to correct an unsafe condition for the Bell Model 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3 helicopters, all serial numbers (S/N), and Model 206L-4 helicopters, S/Ns 52001 through 52430, with servo, part number (P/N) 206-076-062-103, installed. TCCA advises that a “quality escape” by a supplier occurred, and a number of Bell servos may have a loose nut, shaft, and clevis assembly. According to TCCA, the loose connection is due to improper lock washer installation. TCAA advises that this discrepancy is not traceable or identifiable except by inspection and that a “disconnect” of the affected components may lead to loss of control of the helicopter. TCAA states Revision 1 of its AD retains the mandated inspections and corrective action in the original issue of its AD but expands the applicability to include all serial-numbered servos.
These helicopter models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the bilateral agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TCCA and determined the unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.
Bell has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-11-169, Revision B, dated August 29, 2011 (ASB), which specifies, before next flight, unless previously accomplished, a one-time inspection for loose or misaligned parts of the servos, P/N 206-076-062-103, installed on Bell Model 206L, 206L-1, and 206L-3 helicopters, all S/Ns, and Model 206L-4 helicopters, S/Ns 52001 through 52430. TCCA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD No. CF-2011-19R1 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
The TCCA AD requires you to return the parts removed from service to the manufacturer. This AD does not.
This AD requires for each servo, before further flight, retracting the boot
We estimate that this AD will affect 695 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. It will take about .5 work hour to inspect and re-identify a servo at $85 per work hour for a total cost per helicopter of about $43, and a total cost to the U.S. operator fleet of $29,538. Replacing a servo will take about 2 work hours and parts costing $33,000, for a total cost per helicopter of $33,170.
Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished before further flight.
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice an opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Bell Model 206L, 206L-1, and 206L-3 helicopters, all serial numbers (S/N), and Model 206L-4 helicopters, S/Ns 52001 through 52430, with a hydraulic servo actuator assembly (servo), part number (P/N) 206-076-062-103, installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as loose or misaligned parts of the servo. This condition could result in failure of the servo and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective February 7, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Before further flight, for each servo:
(1) Retract the boot as depicted in Figure 1 of Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-11-169, Revision B, dated August 29, 2011 (ASB).
(2) Applying only hand pressure, determine whether the nut, shaft, and clevis assembly turn independently from each other.
(i) If the shaft turns independently of the nut or the clevis assembly, before further flight, replace the servo with an airworthy servo.
(ii) If the shaft does not turn independently of the nut or the clevis assembly, inspect to determine whether at least one tab of the lock washer (tab) is aligned with and bent flush against a flat surface of the nut and whether at least one tab is aligned with and bent flush against a flat surface of the clevis assembly.
(A) If at least one tab is aligned with and bent flush against a nut flat surface and at least one tab is aligned with and bent flush against a flat surface of the clevis assembly, for any tab that is not bent flush against either a flat surface of the nut or clevis assembly, bend it flush against a flat surface.
(B) If at least one tab is not aligned with and bent flush against a nut flat surface and at least one tab is not aligned with and bent flush against a flat surface of the clevis assembly, before further flight, replace the servo with an airworthy servo.
(3) Re-identify the servo by metal-impression stamping or by vibro-etching the letter “V” at the end of P/N 206-076-062-103V on the identification plate.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada Civil Aviation AD CF-2011-19R1, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2011.
(1) The Director of the
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bell ASB No. 206L-11-169, Revision B, dated August 29, 2011.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Bell service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6730 Rotorcraft Servo System.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Technical Information Service, and Under Secretary for Technology, United States Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
The Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, issues a final rule that amends regulations to reflect the abolishment of the Technology Administration and the resulting redelegations of authority.
This rule is effective on January 23, 2013. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 23, 2013.
Henry Wixon, Chief Counsel for NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Mail Stop 1052, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1052, telephone: (301) 975-2803.
On August 9, 2007, the President signed into law the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69) (“COMPETES Act”). In part, the COMPETES Act amended the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3704) by abolishing the Technology Administration and repealing certain authorities of the Under Secretary for Technology. The Secretary of Commerce has redelegated the remaining authorities of the Under Secretary for Technology through a memorandum issued on November 14, 2007. This rule revises the pertinent regulations to reflect the changes in authorities as well as updates addresses and standards referenced in the regulations.
This rule has been determined not to be significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612.
Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. As such, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to, nor shall any person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
There are no collections of information involved in this rulemaking.
This rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Arms and munitions, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Toys, Transportation.
Metric system.
Arms and munitions, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Toys, Transportation.
Business and industry, Research, Science and technology.
Metric system.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Grant programs, Inventions and patents, Nonprofit organizations, Small businesses.
Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Inventions and patents.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of the America COMPETES Act, Public Law 110-69; the National Institute of Standards and Technology Reauthorization Act of 2010, Public Law 111-358; and 15 U.S.C. 277, 15 CFR chapters II and XI and 37 CFR chapters IV and V are amended as follows:
Section 4 of the Federal Energy Management Improvement Act of 1988, 15 U.S.C. 5001.
(b) Traditional B-B, paint-ball, or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of compressed air, compressed gas or mechanical spring action, or any combination thereof, as described in American Society for Testing and Materials standard F 589-85, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Non-Powder Guns, June 28, 1985. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the IHS Inc., 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112,
No person shall manufacture, enter into commerce, ship, transport, or receive any toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm (“device”) covered by this part as set forth in § 272.1 unless such device contains, or has affixed to it, one of the markings set forth in § 272.3, or unless this prohibition has been waived by § 272.4.
(a) A blaze orange (Fed-Std-595B 12199) or orange color brighter than that specified by the federal standard color number, solid plug permanently affixed to the muzzle end of the barrel as an integral part of the entire device and recessed no more than 6 millimeters from the muzzle end of the barrel.
(b) A blaze orange (Fed-Std-595B 12199) or orange color brighter than that specified by the Federal Standard color number, marking permanently affixed to the exterior surface of the barrel, covering the circumference of the barrel from the muzzle end for a depth of at least 6 millimeters.
(e) This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of Federal Standard 595B, December 1989, color number 12199 (Fed-Std-595B 12199), may be obtained from the General Services Administration at General Services Administration, Federal Acquisition Service, FAS Office of General Supplies and Services, Engineering and Cataloging Division (QSDEC) Arlington, VA 22202 or at the General Services Administration Web site at:
The prohibitions set forth in § 272.2 may be waived for any toy, look-alike or imitation firearm that will be used only in the theatrical, movie or television industry. A request for such a waiver should be made, in writing, to the Chief Counsel for NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1052, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1052. The request must include a sworn affidavit which states that the toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm will be used only in the theatrical, movie or television industry. A sample of the item must be included with the request.
15 U.S.C. 1512 and 3710, 15 U.S.C. 205a, DOO 30-2A.
(a) The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology will assist in coordinating the efforts of Federal agencies in meeting their obligations under the Metric Conversion Act, as amended.
35 U.S.C. 206; DOO 30-2A.
(j) The term
All submissions or inquiries should be directed to the Chief Counsel for NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1052, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1052; telephone: (301) 975-2803; email:
35 U.S.C. 207-209, DOO 30-2A.
Sec. 4, E.O. 10096, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 292, as amended by E.O. 10930, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 456 and by E.O. 10695, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 355, DOO 30-2A.
(a) The term
All submissions or inquiries should be directed to the Chief Counsel for NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1052, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1052; telephone: (301) 975-2803; email:
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule; technical amendment.
On August 6, 2010 and September 16, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) published documents in the
Linda Cullen, Office of the Secretary, at (202) 551-5402; Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The final rules that are subject to this correction included inaccurate amendatory instructions that resulted in the publication of two Editorial Notes to Part 200. This document is intended only to correct the authority citation to subpart A of Part 200 and remove the two Editorial Notes and does not affect any other aspects of the two original final rules.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies), Privacy.
Accordingly, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77o, 77s, 77sss, 78d, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-37, 80b-11, 7202, and 7211 et seq., unless otherwise noted.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) is
In the Division of Corporation Finance, for questions on submission type IRANNOTICE, contact Jeffrey Thomas at (202) 551-3600; in the Division of Investment Management for questions concerning submission types 497AD, 40-17G, 40-17G/A, 40-17GCS, 40-17GCS/A, 40-24B2, and 40-24B2/A, contact Heather Fernandez at (202) 551-6708; and in the Office of Information Technology, contact Vanessa Anderson at (202) 551-8800.
We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II. The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system.
The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 22 (January 2013). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format.
The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 13.0 on January 14, 2013 and will introduce the following changes: EDGAR will be updated to introduce a new submission type, IRANNOTICE, on EDGAR Filing Web site for filers to submit notices of disclosure filed in Exchange Act quarterly and annual reports under Section 219 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012
EDGAR will be updated to allow filers to submit, on a voluntary basis, submission types 497AD, 40-17G, 40-17G/A, 40-17GCS, 40-17GCS/A, 40-24B2, and 40-24B2/A in Portable Document Format (PDF) as an official filing format. EDGAR will continue to accept ASCII and HTML as official filing formats for these submissions.
The new online version of Form N-SAR deployment has been delayed to April 2013. The specific deployment date will be announced on the Commission's public Web site's “Information for EDGAR Filers” page (
Along with the adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
You may obtain paper copies of the updated Filer Manual at the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Room 1543, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. We will post electronic format copies on the Commission's Web site; the address for the Filer Manual is
Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule changes relate solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is January 23, 2013. In accordance with the APA,
We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78
Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets out the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 14 (October 2012). The requirements for filing on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 22 (January 2013). All of these provisions have been incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, which action was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. You must comply with these requirements in order for documents to be timely received and accepted. You can obtain paper copies of the EDGAR Filer Manual from the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Room 1543, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Electronic copies are available on the Commission's Web site. The address for the Filer Manual is
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78u-5, 78w(a), 78
15 U.S.C. 78a
15 U.S.C. 77ddd(c), 77eee, 77ggg, 77hhh, 77iii, 77jjj, 77sss, and 78
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 78c(b), 78
[The revised Form ID will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations]
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is adopting amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 to implement the requirements of Section 929W of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). That Section added to Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) subsection (g), “Due Diligence for the Delivery of Dividends, Interest, and Other Valuable Property Rights,” which directs the Commission to revise Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-17, “Transfer Agents' Obligation to Search for Lost Securityholders” to: extend the requirements of Rule 17Ad-17 to search for lost securityholders from only recordkeeping transfer agents to brokers and dealers as well; add a requirement that “paying agents” notify “unresponsive payees” that a paying agent has sent a securityholder a check that has not yet been negotiated; and add certain other provisions. The Commission also is adopting a proposed conforming amendment to Rule 17Ad-7(i) and new Rule 15b1-6, a technical rule to help ensure that brokers and dealers have notice of their new obligations with respect to lost securityholders and unresponsive payees.
The amendments will become effective on March 25, 2013. The
Thomas C. Etter, Jr., Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5710, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.
On July 21, 2010, the President signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law.
Section 929W of the Dodd-Frank Act added to Section 17A of the Exchange Act subsection (g), which requires the Commission to revise Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-17
Subsection (g) of Section 17A of the Exchange Act further directs the Commission to revise Rule 17Ad-17 to include “a requirement that the paying agent provide a single written notification to each missing security holder that the missing security holder has been sent a check that has not yet been negotiated.”
Section 17A(g)(1)(D)(i) of the Exchange Act provides that “a security holder shall be considered a `missing security holder' if a check is sent to the security holder and the check is not negotiated before the earlier of the paying agent sending the next regularly scheduled check or the elapsing of six months after the sending of the not yet negotiated check.”
Exchange Act Section 17A(g)(1)(B) and (C) also require that the revisions to Rule 17Ad-17: (1) Provide an exclusion for paying agents from the notification requirements when the value of the not yet negotiated check is less than $25;
Exchange Act Section 17A(g)(2) requires the Commission to adopt rules, regulations, or orders necessary to implement the provisions of Section 17A(g)(1).
On March 18, 2011, the Commission issued a release proposing for comment amendments to Exchange Act Rules 17Ad-17 and 17Ad-7 (“Proposing Release”).
The Commission received fourteen comment letters on the proposed rule amendments, including six letters from trade associations.
Letters were received from: Mary Pitman, author,
The Commission originally adopted Rule 17Ad-17 in 1997 to address situations where recordkeeping transfer agents have lost contact with
The amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 implement the statutory directive of Section 17A(g)(1) of the Exchange Act to extend the application of that rule to brokers and dealers. Specifically, the Commission is adopting the changes to Rule 17Ad-17 implementing this extension largely as proposed, principally by revising paragraph (a) of Rule 17Ad-17 to extend its requirements to “every broker or dealer that has customer security accounts that include accounts of lost securityholders”.
As adopted, Rule 17Ad-17(a) will now apply to all “brokers” and “dealers”. Two commenters
The Commission has carefully considered these comments for narrowing the application of Rule 17Ad-17 to some subset of brokers and dealers or securities. The Commission acknowledges that there may be different means by which a broker or dealer may determine whether it has accounts of lost securityholders, as well as different means of exercising reasonable care to ascertain the correct addresses of those securityholders under Rule 17Ad-17.
The Commission is therefore interpreting the terms “broker” and “dealer” in paragraph (a) of the rule to mean a “broker” or “dealer” as defined, respectively, in Exchange Act Sections 3(a)(4)
As adopted, Rule 17Ad-17(a)(1) will now require brokers and dealers to search for “lost securityholders” as that term is defined in paragraph (b)(2) of the rule. Two commenters questioned the obligation to consider a securityholder “lost” after the return of a single item of correspondence, as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of the rule.
The Commission notes that the purpose of Rule 17Ad-17 has been to make certain that records of transfer agents—and now brokers and dealers—reflect the correct addresses for securityholders. Because of the importance of having accurate records and of maintaining contact with securityholders, the rule as adopted in 1997—the version the Commission is directed by Congress to extend to brokers and dealers—provides that the obligation to search for a lost securityholder should attach when the first item of any type of correspondence is returned as undeliverable.
Therefore, the Commission has determined not to adopt the suggestions to delay a broker's or dealer's obligation to search until several items or some specific type of correspondence have been returned as undeliverable.
One commenter suggested that if the proposed amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 were adopted, the rule should make clear that a broker's or dealer's obligation to search for lost securityholders applies to the same universe of securities to which a registered transfer agent's obligation applies,
The commenter also states that if a transfer agent has contractually agreed to search for the lost securityholders of a particular issuer, then no principal underwriter or selling broker of that issuer's securities should be obligated to search for the same lost securityholders.
New paragraph (c) of Rule 17Ad-17 implements the statutory directive of Section 17A(g) of the Exchange Act by requiring, among other things, that a paying agent must provide to each unresponsive payee a single written notification no later than seven months
The Commission is adopting Rule 17Ad-17 largely as proposed. However, as described below, the Commission is adopting the term “unresponsive payee” throughout Rule 17Ad-17(c) in lieu of “missing securityholder” because of the potential for confusion and misinterpretation by paying agents and other parties. In addition, also as described below, the Commission is providing additional guidance about when certain of the requirements applicable to paying agents apply, clarifying when notifications must be sent by paying agents, and modifying paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) from the text of the Proposing Release to allow the requisite calculations to rely on days as well as months.
Consistent with the definition in Section 17A(g)(1)(D)(ii) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission understands that the term “paying agent” applies broadly, but believes this expansive definition is consistent with congressional intent in light of the precise language requiring a range of specific entities to be included in the definition. While the Commission recognizes that some of the entities covered by the definition of “paying agent” are not required to be registered with the Commission, the Commission believes that the broad definition of “paying agent” in Section 17A(g) of the Exchange Act provides the Commission with authority with respect to such entities for purposes of Rule 17Ad-17. Consequently, the Commission is adopting as proposed the statutory language defining “paying agent” specifically drafted by Congress for inclusion in Rule 17Ad-17.
Another commenter stated that the term “paying agent” should be defined to exclude any broker, dealer, transfer agent, investment adviser, indenture trustee, custodian, or any other person that is not contractually obligated to distribute money received from an issuer to an issuer's securityholders.
This commenter also suggests that the rule should exempt issuers that contract with other paying agents from the requirement to provide written notification to persons with checks that are not yet negotiated. The Commission does not interpret the definition of “paying agent” to apply to an issuer that has contracted with another entity to act as the issuer's “paying agent” and that is not itself distributing payments to securityholders; accordingly, the Commission does not believe a specific exemption is required.
New paragraph (c)(3) of Rule 17Ad-17, consistent with Section 17A(g)(1)(D)(i) of the Exchange Act,
As adopted, paragraph (c)(3) uses the term “unresponsive payee” instead of the term “missing securityholder,” which is used by Section 17A(g) of the Exchange Act and by the proposed rule. Five commenters objected to the proposed rule's use of the term “missing securityholder,” asserting that the new term: (1) Would be confused with the rule's existing term “lost securityholder”; (2) is a misnomer because it does not actually involve securityholders that are missing but simply securityholders who have uncashed checks; and (3) should be replaced by a more descriptive term like “unresponsive payee” or “securityholder with an uncashed check.”
One commenter suggested that the term “unresponsive payee” should apply only to natural persons in order to be consistent with the requirements applicable to “lost securityholders.”
Two commenters suggested that the Commission clarify that a securityholder may be deemed an unresponsive payee for purposes of paragraph (c) of Rule 17Ad-17 for having failed to cash a check, but that such status will not result in his being deemed a lost securityholder for purposes of paragraph (a) unless that person specifically meets the definition of “lost securityholder” in paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 17Ad-17.
A commenter asked how long a person who becomes an unresponsive payee will remain in that status.
A commenter inquired about the situation where an unresponsive payee either becomes a lost securityholder or is known to have died.
This commenter also inquired about an unresponsive payee who has received one or more checks from a paying agent on a monthly basis but who has not negotiated any check.
The term “regularly scheduled check” in Section 17A(g)(1)(D)(i) of the Exchange Act is not defined by the statute. One commenter suggested that the term should refer to checks that securityholders have made arrangements to have sent to them on a “pre-specified, regularly-scheduled basis” and that the term should not include
Congress, in drafting Section 17A(g)(1)(B) of the Exchange Act, did not limit the meaning of “regularly scheduled check” to such instruments as “interest and dividend checks” or mention established “arrangements” in this connection.
In the Proposing Release, the Commission proposed to incorporate the statutory definition of “missing securityholder” from Section 17A(g)(1)(D)(i) into subparagraph (c)(3) of Rule 17Ad-17.
Two commenters stated that some regularly scheduled distributions by paying agents are made on a monthly cycle.
The Commission notes that the paying agent would have to send only one notification for a given check and that such notification could be sent along with another check or other subsequent mailing. In addition, the Commission notes that while a particular payee receiving monthly checks may become an “unresponsive payee” after a single month, the requirement to provide an actual notification to the payee allows a full seven months following the sending of the unnegotiated check (
Two commenters asked if a paying agent may issue one generic notification to alert an unresponsive payee of multiple checks, perhaps from different issuers, that remain unnegotiated for the seven-month measuring period.
Commenters further suggested that a check that has not yet been negotiated should be excluded from notification requirements if the check is “redeposited” into the securityholder's account. One commenter suggested that such check redepositing should occur within six months of its issuance.
Another commenter observed that broker-dealers provide periodic statements to customers that include all disbursements, including checks, and that such statements could serve as the notifications contemplated by the rule amendments.
Three commenters requested clarification on whether the written notification would include electronic communications.
One of these commenters suggested that instead of using the statutory terms 6 months and 7 months as measuring times, the rule could use 180 calendar days and 210 calendar days, respectively, which the commenter suggests are easier to accommodate in accounting periods and in programming systems. Accordingly, to accommodate variances in entities' accounting procedures and systems, the Commission is adopting language to provide the option of using months or days. Rule 17Ad-17(c), as adopted, allows “6 months (or 180 days)” and “7 months (or 210 days).”
New paragraph (c)(4) of Rule 17Ad-17, consistent with Exchange Act Section 17A(g)(1)(B), excludes a paying agent from the notification requirements where the value of the not yet negotiated check is less than $25.
In the Proposing Release, the Commission requested comment on Congress' directive in Section 17A(g)(2) that “[t]he Commission shall seek to minimize disruptions to current systems used by or on behalf of paying agents to process payments to account holders and avoid requiring multiple paying agents to send written notifications to a missing security holder [
New paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 17Ad-17, as required by Exchange Act Section 17A(g)(1)(C),
One commenter stated that language in footnote 15 of the Proposing Release constituted an effort by the Commission to “eliminate federal preemption subtly.”
Three commenters requested clarification concerning the effective and compliance dates of the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17.
In response to the comments, the Commission is making clear that the rules will be effective 60 days after publication in the
One commenter asked whether the rule would apply retroactively, meaning that notifications might be required for checks already outstanding.
Another commenter observed that the rule covers brokers, dealers, transfer agents, and others who may not be aware that the rule will apply to them.
The Commission is adopting Rule 15b1-6 simply to provide ongoing notice to brokers and dealers of amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 that affect brokers and dealers, and it imposes no independent obligation on any party.
Currently, Rule 17Ad-17(c)
One commenter suggested that the Commission's proposed name for Rule 17Ad-17 (“Transfer agents', brokers', and dealers' obligation to search for lost securityholders; paying agents' obligation to search for missing securityholders”) is too long.
As explained in the Proposing Release, certain provisions of proposed amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 required a new and mandatory “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
The control number for this release is OMB Control Number 3225-0469 and the title is “Transfer Agents' Obligation to Search for Lost Securityholders (17 CFR 240.17Ad-17).” The Commission anticipates changing the title of the collection to “Obligation to Search for Lost Securityholders and Notify Unresponsive Payees” to reflect the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 and the change in the title of the rule.
As adopted, the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 require a new and mandatory “collection of information” within the meaning of the PRA. This collection of information consists of: (1) Brokers and dealers collecting information in order to comply with new requirements to search for lost securityholders under paragraph (a) of Rule 17Ad-17; (2) paying agents collecting information in order to comply with new requirements to provide notifications to unresponsive payees under paragraph (c) of Rule 17Ad-17; and (3) brokers, dealers, and paying agents making and maintaining records under paragraph (d) of Rule 17Ad-17 to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-17, including written procedures which describe their methodology for complying.
Brokers and dealers will use the information collected pursuant to paragraph (a) of Rule 17Ad-17—namely, information regarding the accounts of lost securityholders and the addresses of lost securityholders—to engage in searches for lost securityholders. Paying agents will use the information collected pursuant to paragraph (c) of Rule 17Ad-17—namely, information regarding the accounts of unresponsive payees and the status of their negotiations of checks sent by the paying agent—to provide notifications to unresponsive payees that they have been sent checks but have not negotiated them.
The Commission will use the information collected under paragraph (d) of Rule 17Ad-17 to monitor the records made and maintained by every recordkeeping transfer agent, broker or dealer, and paying agent to demonstrate compliance with the requirements set forth in Rule 17Ad-17. Such records will include written procedures that describe the entity's methodology for complying with the rule.
The Commission estimates that approximately 4,705 brokers and dealers would be subject to paragraph (a) of Rule 17Ad-17, which would require them to do certain database searches for their lost securityholders. While applicable to all brokers and dealers, we are estimating that, as a practical matter, paragraph (a) will apply primarily to those brokers and dealers that carry securities accounts for customers (
The Commission estimates that approximately 28,577 entities—issuers, transfer agents, brokers, dealers, indenture trustees, and custodians—potentially will be subject to the requirements of paragraph (c) of Rule 17Ad-17, which would require them to
All brokers, dealers, and paying agents—an estimated total of 7,439 entities
In the Proposing Release, the Commission initially estimated for the purposes of Rule 17Ad-17 that, on an annual basis: (1) Approximately 250,000 searches by brokers and dealers would be required by paragraph (a) of Rule 17Ad-17 as proposed, with each search taking approximately five minutes; and (2) approximately 50,000 notifications by an estimated 1,000 paying agents would be required by paragraph (c) of Rule 17Ad-17 as proposed, with each notification taking approximately three minutes. We further estimated that these searches and notifications would require, respectively, 500 and 100 hours of recordkeeping time. Accordingly, we estimated that the total estimated burden of the proposed amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 would be 23,933 hours.
In response to the Proposing Release, we received comments that costs stated in the Proposing Release “likely are greater than estimated,”
Under paragraph (a) of the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17, brokers and dealers will now be required to conduct certain database searches for lost securityholders. Such database searches must be conducted without charge to the lost securityholders. In the Proposing Release, the Commission stated that much of the information required to be collected in order to effectuate such searches (such as the TINs of lost securityholders) is already maintained by brokers and dealers; accordingly, in many cases there should not be an additional cost to the broker or dealer to obtain the required information. We initially assumed that, with automated equipment and much of the information required to be collected already in the possession of brokers and dealers, lost securityholder searches could be performed in about two minutes. We increased the estimated search time in the Proposing Release to five minutes to allow for additional contingencies that may occur in connection with database searches.
In the Proposing Release, the Commission initially estimated that there were 5,063 broker-dealers registered with the Commission, who would perform approximately 250,000 searches per year—that is, approximately 49 searches for lost securityholders per broker or dealer per year (250,000 divided by 5,063 equals 49 searches per broker-dealer), or less than one search per broker-dealer per week. However, as noted in section III.C above, we anticipate—and the Proposing Release assumed—that Rule 17Ad-17 will as a practical matter apply mainly to brokers and dealers that carry securities accounts for customers (
In reviewing these estimates, some commenters noted that burdens generally may be higher than anticipated in the Proposing Release. Wells Fargo noted that some project costs, such as printing and operating databases, tend to include associated expenses that are not included in the broader categories such as “labor.”
The Commission continues to believe that carrying firms, which we estimate to number approximately 301,
With respect to specific burden estimates, commenters did not address the five minute estimate for the search time under paragraph (a) of Rule 17Ad-17, but instead suggested that we should increase our estimates of the number of searches that would be required. In particular, SIFMA stated, “SIFMA member firms estimate that the number of searches and notifications could be significantly more than the Commission's stated estimates—perhaps as much as four times more.”
Under amended paragraph (c) of Rule 17Ad-17, a paying agent must provide not less than one written notification to each unresponsive payee no later than seven months after such securityholder has been sent a check that has not yet been negotiated. The notification may be sent with a check or other mailing subsequently sent to the unresponsive payee but must be provided no later than seven months after the sending of the not yet negotiated check. In the Proposing Release, the Commission stated that the burden for issuing a notification to an unresponsive payee would be modest, approximately three minutes, given the existence of automated systems that can be used for these purposes in the entities expected to be affected by the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17.
In the Proposing Release, the Commission initially estimated that there would be 1,000 entities acting as paying agents that would be affected by paragraph (c) of Rule 17Ad-17, and that those entities would issue approximately 50,000 notifications per year is equivalent—that is, 50 notifications per paying agent per year (50,000 notifications per year divided by 1,000 paying agents equals 50 notifications per paying agent per year), or fewer than one notification per paying agent per week (50 notifications per paying agent per year divided by 52 weeks per year equals 0.96 notifications per week).
Based on the comments described above about burdens being higher than estimated in the Proposing Release,
We emphasize that all of these populations they can be subject to substantial variations over time. The Commission also notes that the statutory definition of “paying agent” includes “any other person” after specifying all of the categories of financial entities already included in the Commission's estimate of the potential universe of paying agents. Accordingly, we anticipate that only a
In addition, based on the comments received regarding the potential burden of paragraph (c) of Rule 17Ad-17 and the increased estimate in the number of paying agents, we are also increasing the estimated number of annual notifications by paying agent. Commenters did not address our estimated time of three minutes for each unresponsive payee notification, and the Commission has determined to retain this notification time. Accordingly, the Commission is increasing the number of notifications that it estimates will be issued by paying agents each year from 50,000 to 758,750, which is the equivalent of approximately one notification being made per paying agent per business day (1 notification multiplied by 3,035 paying agents multiplied by 250 business days).
Amended paragraph (d) of Rule 17Ad-17 will now requires brokers, dealers, and paying agents that are subject to paragraph (a) and/or paragraph (c) of the rule to maintain records to demonstrate their compliance with the rule, including written procedures which describe their
Based on discussions with market participants, we initially estimated in the Proposing Release that the annual burden for making and keeping these records, which should be processed electronically, would be approximately one hour for every 500 lost securityholder accounts and one hour for every 500 unresponsive payee accounts. Based on this incremental burden, we estimated that the total recordkeeping burden would be approximately 600 hours (250,000 lost securityholders searches divided by 500 accounts plus 50,000 notifications to unresponsive payees divided by 500 accounts, times 1 hour).
We received no specific comment on this incremental burden estimate of one hour, and we continue to believe it appropriate. As described above, however, the Commission is increasing its estimate of the number of searches that will be undertaken for lost securityholders to 650,000 searches and is increasing its estimate of the number of notifications that will be sent to unresponsive payees to 758,750. Accordingly, we are increasing our estimate of the total recordkeeping burden as a result of the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 from approximately 600 hours to approximately 2,818 hours: 1,300 hours with respect to searches for lost securityholders (650,000 searches divided by 500 accounts, times 1 hour) and 1,518 hours with respect to notifications to unresponsive payees (758,750 notifications divided by 500 accounts, times 1 hour).
In summary, the total revised estimated burden resulting from the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 and based on the assumptions and estimates described above would be 94,916 hours: 54,160 hours associated with the 650,000 searches expected to be undertaken by brokers and dealers pursuant to the amendments to paragraph (a) of Rule 17Ad-17; 37,938 hours associated with the 758,750 notifications to unresponsive payees expected to be made by paying agents pursuant to the amendments to paragraph (c) of Rule 17Ad-17; and 2,818 hours associated with the making and keeping of records anticipated to be necessary for brokers, dealers, and paying agents to comply with the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 under paragraph (d) of the rule (54,160 hours plus 37,938 hours plus 2,818 hours).
All collections of information pursuant to Rule 17Ad-17 will be mandatory.
The information collected under the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 would be generated mainly from the internal records of brokers, dealers, and paying agents. The Commission expects that some of this information, if included in a filing with the Commission, would be deemed confidential to the extent permitted by law with respect to such filing. Additionally, with respect to other information collected under the amendments and included in a filing with the Commission, a broker, dealer, or paying agent can request to the Commission that the information be kept confidential.
Brokers, dealers, and paying agents will be required to retain records and information under Rule 17Ad-17 for a period of three years, with the first year in an easily accessible place.
Exchange Act Section 23(a)(2) requires the Commission, when adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to consider the impact that any new rule would have on competition, and prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Furthermore, Exchange Act Section 3(f) requires the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking under the Exchange Act where it is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to also consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
As described above, the Commission is adopting amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 under congressional directive. As originally adopted, Rule 17Ad-17 requires transfer agents to conduct database searches for lost securityholders. Such loss of contact can be harmful to securityholders because they no longer receive corporate communications or interest and dividend payments; in certain cases, securities, cash, and other property may be placed at risk of being deemed abandoned.
As discussed above in detail, Section 929W of the Dodd-Frank Act amended Section 17A of the Exchange Act to extend to brokers and dealers the requirement of Rule 17Ad-17 to search for “lost securityholders.” Separately, the statute requires “paying agents” to provide written notification to each unresponsive payee that the securityholder has been sent a check that has not been negotiated, and defines “paying agent” to include, “any issuer, transfer agent, broker, dealer, investment adviser, indenture trustee, custodian, or any other person that accepts payments from the issuer of a security and distributes the payments to the holders of the security.” The Commission is adopting amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 to address these statutory requirements and to require brokers, dealers, and paying agents subject to the amended rule to make and keep records to demonstrate compliance with the amended rule, including written procedures that describe their methodology for complying.
While the Commission is adopting amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 specifically to implement the statutory mandate, the Commission recognizes that there may be costs and benefits resulting from the statute and amendments to Rule 17Ad-17. Extending the requirements of Rule 17Ad-17 to brokers and dealers represents a new regulatory obligation for brokers and dealers, and these entities will face associated costs of complying with the new obligations. Furthermore, paying agents—including transfer agents, brokers, and dealers—will incur costs associated with the new requirements of Rule 17Ad-17 to provide certain notifications to unresponsive payees. The definition of “paying agent” is sufficiently broad that these costs will also be incurred by entities that do not register with—and have not historically been regulated by—the Commission. At the same time, lost securityholders and unresponsive payees may benefit by receiving
These costs and benefits are discussed below. Additionally, the Commission has considered alternative ways of implementing the statute suggested by commenters, including narrowing the scope of “brokers and dealers” and shortening the definition of “paying agent.” We discuss aspects of these alternative proposals below as well.
Originally adopted in 1997, Rule 17Ad-17 requires recordkeeping transfer agents to conduct database searches for lost securityholders. At the time, the Commission staff estimated that 1.34% of total accounts held by such transfer agents were lost, representing around $450 million in lost assets.
As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission is extending the obligation under Rule 17Ad-17 to search for lost securityholders to brokers and dealers. While brokers and dealers house and manage certain securityholder accounts, there are good economic reasons to believe the likelihood of accounts becoming lost is lower for brokers and dealers than for transfer agents. Brokers and dealers rely on their customers and account holders as a source of revenue, so have an economic incentive to maintain up-to-date records. Additionally, because the customers' and account holders' assets are held by brokers and dealers, and because most of their contact in the ordinary course of business is with the broker or dealer (not a transfer agent), customers have a stronger incentive to keep their account information updated with the brokers and dealers than with transfer agents, so as to not lose contact with their assets. Indeed, though recent data are scarce because the Commission has not to date formally tracked the number of lost securityholder accounts at brokers and dealers, there are studies that support this hypothesis to some extent.
In a 2001 survey of transfer agents and broker-dealers by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) (then called the General Accounting Office), the GAO found that, similar to Commission surveys, approximately 2% of accounts at transfer agents and brokers-dealers were classified as lost. While the GAO concluded that few differences may exist between transfer agents and broker-dealers in the ratio of lost securityholder accounts to total accounts, they did find that 95% of brokers-dealers reported less than 1% of accounts as lost, while for transfer agents, 75% reported less than 1% of accounts as lost. Similarly, a less formal 2000 survey of 17 brokers-dealers by SIFMA (then called the Securities Industry Association) found that lost securityholders accounted for 0.79% of total accounts held at brokers-dealers.
Nevertheless, while the overall incidence of lost securityholder accounts relative to total securityholder accounts held may be lower at brokers and dealers than transfer agents, the absolute magnitude, in terms of both number of lost accounts and dollar amount of assets at risk of being abandoned, may still be economically meaningful. Transfer agents serve as an intermediary between issuers and owners of securities, passing along dividends, interest payments, and other corporate communications and distributions to a company's investors. However, a Commission Briefing Paper from 2007 on proxy voting mechanics noted that, at the time, approximately 85% of exchange-traded securities were held in street name, as opposed to investor name.
In addition to extending the requirement to search for lost securityholders to brokers and dealers, the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 also require paying agents to notify unresponsive payees in writing when they have unnegotiated checks outstanding. The Commission currently lacks accurate data—including any informal survey or other incomplete dataset that may be indicative—on the number of unresponsive payees, as well as whether a securityholder has not negotiated a check due to, for example, lost or stolen property or investor inattention. However, based on initial estimates in the Proposing Release we provided for public comment and adjusted based on such comment as described in section III above,
As mentioned in the discussion of the economic baseline, the general purpose of Rule 17Ad-17 is to reduce the number of securityholder accounts that become lost, and therefore to minimize the risk that lost property is claimed by the states under escheatment laws. This risk can be economically significant—in 2000, the Commission staff estimated that over $93 million in assets, or an average of $243 per account, were remitted to the states as unclaimed property.
The Commission recognizes that brokers and dealers already have an economic incentive to search for lost securityholders, since they rely on securityholders for revenue. Therefore, it is possible that the benefits of the rule, in terms of a reduction in the number of lost securityholders, will be relatively modest. However, the Commission believes that establishing minimum search requirements will facilitate the realization of such incentives for identifying and finding lost securityholders, as was apparently intended by Congress.
In the case of unresponsive payees, the Commission believes that, due to instances of lost or stolen property, there may exist a subset of investors who are unaware that an unnegotiated check has gone missing. The rule should benefit these investors by invoking the services of paying agents to reduce the number of unnegotiated checks. While these benefits are difficult to quantify, the Commission estimates that paying agents would send approximately 800,000 notifications per year; accordingly, if even a relatively small percentage of notifications result in checks that would not otherwise have been negotiated being negotiated, there may be a significant aggregate monetary benefit to investors.
The Commission also expects the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 to modestly improve the efficient allocation and use of resources to the extent that the new rules reduce the number of lost securityholders and unresponsive payees. Fewer lost securityholders and unresponsive payees should reduce the amount of property that is effectively idle and not being used deliberately for an economic purpose because the securityholder is unaware of the existence of the property, as well as reduce the costs securityholders face when attempting to track down and claim lost assets. Furthermore, by identifying lost securityholders and finding lost and idle property, there may be beneficial trades that occur as found accountholders rebalance their portfolios, to the extent that it is optimal to do so. This result should in turn lead to enhanced liquidity and improved price efficiency as assets become available for trade.
The Commission also expects that identification of lost accountholders may lead to better corporate governance, either through improved proxy voting rates or through trades that place the securities in the hands of more active investors. Both channels could result in enhanced managerial monitoring and corporate governance, which in turn would promote capital formation as firms make investment choices that are expected to be more closely aligned with the interests of investors.
Finally, the Commission expects that the amendments will have a marginal, if any, impact on competition. Fundamentally, the regulatory problem that Congress addressed in directing the amendment of Rule 17Ad-17 is about efficiency losses associated with lost property that is ultimately claimed by the state, and not about uncompetitive capital markets. We generally expect the benefits of the rule to be realized in terms of the efficient allocation of resources of securityholders and corresponding effects on capital formation through improved monitoring and governance, and not improved competition.
The amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 create new regulatory obligations for brokers, dealers, and paying agents (which include transfer agents, brokers, dealers, and other entities). Brokers and dealers must conduct searches for lost securityholders, while paying agents must provide notifications to an unresponsive payee that he or she is the holder of an unnegotiated check. Furthermore, because the definition of “paying agent” captures certain entities that distribute cash flows from issuers to investors, the amendments create obligations under the Exchange Act for entities that have not historically been regulated by the Commission and for issuers that have had to file only disclosures. To the extent that brokers and dealers and paying agents do not already have systems in place to perform these functions and make and keep the records required to demonstrate compliance (including the written procedures to describe their methodology for complying), these entities will incur costs for any necessary modifications to information gathering, management, recordkeeping, and reporting systems or procedures.
As already discussed, brokers and dealers have an economic incentive to search for lost accounts. While the new rule imposes costs on brokers and dealers, they may already be shouldering some of these costs voluntarily, minimizing the incremental costs of the rule. Nevertheless, in their 2001 study cited above, the GAO found that approximately 40% of transfer agents and brokers and dealers spent less than $10 per lost account to search for lost securityholders, though larger firms were likely to spend more, and about 10% of firms spent greater than $40.
The costs incurred by paying agents in fulfilling their obligations to notify unresponsive payees are less certain, and the Commission currently lacks accurate data—including any informal survey or other incomplete dataset that may be indicative—on the number of unresponsive payees. Since unresponsive payees are not lost but merely unresponsive, paying agents do not incur search costs; variable costs should be limited to identifying and recording when a check has gone unnegotiated, and providing the required written notification. However, certain paying agents may not have the same existing economic incentives to identify and notify unresponsive payees as brokers and dealers already have to search for lost securityholders. Therefore, unlike brokers and dealers that conduct such searches voluntarily being required to do so under the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17, certain paying agents may temporarily face higher fixed costs to set up the systems and procedures to perform their new regulatory obligations. Furthermore, if fixed costs meaningfully outweigh variable costs, there could be competitive burdens placed on smaller entities.
In addition to these search and notification costs, brokers, dealers, and paying agents will incur costs in making and retaining the records required under the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17, including the requirement to maintain written procedures describing their methodology for complying with such amendments. These costs may be moderated for regulated entities like brokers and dealers, who must already maintain extensive sets of records regarding securityholders, including
The Commission requested comment on the costs and benefits of the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 in the Proposing Release, and has considered the comments as well as alternative ways to implement the statute where possible. Several commenters offered alternative interpretations of the phase “brokers and dealers,” suggesting that the statute be read in such a way that the rule does not apply to all brokers and dealers, as a means to mitigate some of the burden of the amendments.
Similarly, several commenters suggested that the Commission revise or shorten the definition of “paying agent,” since the definition captures entities that do not register with the Commission and have not historically fallen under the Commission's regulatory purview.
Finally, as discussed above, it is not clearly stated in the statute whether the paying agent must provide: (1) A single written notification to
A FRFA has been prepared in accordance with Section 4(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking action was expressly directed Section 929W of the Dodd-Frank Act, which added paragraph (g) to Section 17A of the Exchange Act. The objectives of this rulemaking, as discussed above in Sections I and II, are to help reduce the number of lost securityholders and unresponsive payees, and to further the Commission's mission of protecting investors. The legal basis for the rulemaking is set forth in Section 17A(g) of the Exchange Act.
Comments from the public suggested that certain cost estimates included in the Proposing Release were too low.
The amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 will apply to all brokers and dealers. However, as described above, we anticipate that the amendments will as a practical matter apply mainly to brokers and dealers that carry securities for customer accounts (
Certain amendments to Rule 17Ad-17 will apply to all paying agents. Section 17A(g)(D)(ii) defines the term “paying agent” to include “any issuer, transfer agent, broker, dealer, investment adviser, indenture trustee, custodian, or any other person that accepts payment from the issuer of a security and distributes the payments to the holder of the security.” With respect to data for the entities who could potentially qualify as “paying agents” under this definition: (1) Of the 10,379 issuers that file reports with the Commission, 1,207 qualify as small businesses;
We believe that a high proportion of paying agent services will be provided by: (1) brokers and dealers that carry customer securities (which, as discussed above in Section V.C.1, would not be small entities) and (2) transfer agents (including bank transfer agents) that provide such services. These firms that typically serve as intermediaries between issuers and securityholders are not typically small businesses as defined in Exchange Act Rule 0-10(c).
New paragraph (d) of Rule 17Ad-17 requires brokers, dealers, and paying agents maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17, including written procedures that describe their methodology for complying with the amendments. Such records are required to be maintained for not less than three years, the first year in an easily accessible place in accordance with Rule 17Ad-17(i).
As required by Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Section 929W of the Dodd-Frank Act, which added Section 17A(g) to the Exchange Act, expressly requires the amendments to Rule 17Ad-17. We believe that small entities should be included under the amendments because, as discussed above, the statutory language does not suggest that Congress intended to exclude or exempt any class of brokers, dealers, or paying agents from compliance. Rather, furthering the apparent goal of Congress—reuniting securityholders and payees with their property—requires the searches and notifications contemplated by Section 929W to be made by entities regardless of their size. In addition, as noted in Section V.C above, we believe that a significant majority of the entities affected by the amendments will be brokers, dealers, and transfer agents that are not small entities. We expect that, in practice, most brokers and dealers conducting searches for lost securityholders will be carrying firms, which are not small entities, and likewise we expect that most paying agents providing notifications to unresponsive payees will be carrying firms and the larger transfer agents (including bank transfer agents).
A copy of the FRFA may be obtained by contacting Thomas C. Etter, Jr., Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010, telephone no. (202) 551-5713.
Pursuant to Section 17A(g) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(g), the Commission has amended § 240.17Ad-7 and § 240.17Ad-17 and added § 240.15b1-6 under the Exchange Act in the manner set forth below.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Securities.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 240 of Chapter II of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78
Section 240.17Ad-17 is also issued under Pub. L. 111-203, section 929W, 124 Stat. 1869 (2010).
Brokers and dealers are hereby notified of Rule 17Ad-17 (§ 240.17Ad-
The revisions read as follows:
(a)(1) Every recordkeeping transfer agent whose master securityholder file includes accounts of lost securityholders and every broker or dealer that has customer security accounts that include accounts of lost securityholders shall exercise reasonable care to ascertain the correct addresses of such securityholders. In exercising reasonable care to ascertain such lost securityholders' correct addresses, each such recordkeeping transfer agent and each such broker or dealer shall conduct two database searches using at least one information database service. The transfer agent, broker, or dealer shall search by taxpayer identification number or by name if a search based on taxpayer identification number is not reasonably likely to locate the securityholder. Such database searches must be conducted without charge to a lost securityholder and with the following frequency:
(i) Between three and twelve months of such securityholder becoming a lost securityholder; and
(ii) Between six and twelve months after the first search for such lost securityholder by the transfer agent, broker, or dealer.
(3) A transfer agent, broker, or dealer need not conduct the searches set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for a lost securityholder if:
(i) It has received documentation that such securityholder is deceased; or
(ii) The aggregate value of assets listed in the lost securityholder's account, including all dividend, interest, and other payments due to the lost securityholder and all securities owned by the lost securityholder as recorded in the master securityholder files of the transfer agent or in the customer security account records of the broker or dealer, is less than $25; or
(iii) The securityholder is not a natural person.
(c)(1) The paying agent, as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, shall provide not less than one written notification to each unresponsive payee, as defined in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, stating that such unresponsive payee has been sent a check that has not yet been negotiated. Such notification may be sent with a check or other mailing subsequently sent to the unresponsive payee but must be provided no later than seven (7) months (or 210 days) after the sending of the not yet negotiated check. The paying agent shall not be required to send a written notice to an unresponsive payee if such unresponsive payee would be considered a lost securityholder by a transfer agent, broker, or dealer.
(2) The term
(3) A securityholder shall be considered an
(4) A paying agent shall be excluded from the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section where the value of the not yet negotiated check is less than $25.
(5) The requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall have no effect on state escheatment laws.
(d) Every recordkeeping transfer agent, every broker or dealer that has customer security accounts, and every paying agent shall maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements set forth in this section, which records shall include written procedures that describe the transfer agent's, broker's, dealer's, or paying agent's methodology for complying with this section, and shall retain such records in accordance with Rule 17Ad-7(i) (§ 240.17Ad-7(i)).
By the Commission.
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Correcting amendment.
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) corrects its fee regulations in order to reference the Commission's recently finalized appeal rules contained in another subchapter.
Armando Acosta, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005. Email:
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
On February 2, 2012, the Commission published a final rule amending part 514 to provide for the submittal of fees and fee worksheets on a quarterly basis rather than bi-annually; to provide for operations to calculate fees based on the gaming operation's fiscal year rather than a calendar year; to amend certain language in the regulation to better reflect industry usage; to establish an assessment for fees submitted 1-90 days late; and to establish a fingerprinting fee payment process. 77 FR 5178, Feb. 2, 2012. In its final rule, the Commission also provided tribes with rights to appeal proposed late fee assessments in accordance with 25 CFR part 577.
On September 25, 2012, the Commission published a final rule consolidating all appeal proceedings before the Commission into a new subchapter H (Appeal Proceedings Before the Commission), thereby removing former parts 524, 539, and 577. 77 FR 58941, Sept. 25, 2012. Thus, any reference in part 514 to appeal rights in former part 577 is obsolete and must be revised to reference the new subchapter H.
The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions. Nor will the rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The Commission has determined that the rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321,
The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501,
For the reasons discussed in the Preamble, the Commission amends its regulations at 25 CFR part 514 as follows:
25 U.S.C. 2706, 2710, 2710, 2717, 2717a.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
By this direct final rule, the Coast Guard is removing the Decker Island restricted anchorage area in the Sacramento River. The restricted anchorage area was needed in the past to prevent non-government vessels from transiting through or anchoring in the United States Army's tug and barge anchorage zones. The United States Army relinquished control of the island in 1975, and the restricted anchorage area is no longer necessary.
This rule is effective April 23, 2013, unless an adverse comment, or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, is either submitted to our online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-0952 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
If you have questions on this rule, email or call Lieutenant Lucas Mancini, Coast Guard District Eleven; telephone 510-437-3801, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0952), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But, you may submit a request for a public meeting to the docket using one of the methods specified under
We are publishing this direct final rule under 33 CFR 1.05-55 because we do not expect an adverse comment on removal of this unused anchorage. This rule would remove a restriction that is not currently needed or enforced. If no adverse comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is received by March 25, 2013, this rule will become effective as stated in the
A comment is considered “adverse” if the comment explains why this rule or a part of this rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to its underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.
The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 162.205(c) because the restricted anchorage described in that paragraph has not been needed or enforced since the United States Army vacated Decker Island in 1975. The authority to conduct this rulemaking is found in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
Prior to 1953 the United States Army acquired 114.02 acres of Decker Island. The Army used the land for boat landing and storage activities. The purpose of 33 CFR 162.205(c) was to keep vessels and other craft not associated with the United States government from navigating or anchoring within 50 feet of any moored government vessel in the area. In 1974 the United States Army began to vacate Decker Island, officially terminating its lease in January of 1975. With the Army's release of the 114.02 acres of Decker Island the intended use of the restricted anchorage was no longer needed. We believe that no member of the public will be adversely affected by
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. For the reasons stated in section IV., “Discussion of the Rule,” this rule does not impose any additional costs on the public or government.
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. However, when an agency is not required to publish an NPRM for a rule, the RFA does not require an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The Coast Guard was not required to publish an NPRM for this rule for the reasons stated in section II., “Regulatory Information,” and therefore is not required to publish a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please consult Lieutenant Lucas Mancini via the
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
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.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 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 concluded 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 section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f) of the Instruction. This rule involves removal of the restricted anchorage area at Decker Island in the Sacramento River. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f) of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
Navigation (water) and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 162 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District is staying (suspending) reporting requirements under the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) established for barges loaded with certain dangerous cargoes (CDC barges) in the inland rivers of the Ninth Coast Guard District. This stay (suspension) extension is necessary because the Coast Guard continues to analyze future reporting needs and evaluate possible changes in CDC reporting requirements. This stay (suspension) of the CDC reporting requirements in no way relieves towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges in the RNA from their dangerous cargo or vessel arrival and movement reporting obligations currently in effect under other regulations or placed into effect under appropriate Coast Guard authority.
This rule is effective in the CFR on January 23, 2013 until 11:59 p.m. on September 30, 2013. This rule is effective with actual notice for purposes of enforcement at 12:01 a.m. on January 15, 2011 until 11:59 p.m. on September 30, 2013.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2013-0019. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this temporary rule, call or email LCDR David Webb, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-902-6050, email:
CDCCertain Dangerous Cargo
DHSDepartment of Homeland Security
FRFederal Register
NPRMNotice of Proposed Rulemaking
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.
The contract for the CDC barge reporting system at the Inland River Vessel Movement Center (IRVMC) expired in January 2011. Due to the expiration of this contract, the Coast Guard would not be able to receive and process reports, therefore, in late December 2010, the Coast Guard decided to suspend the IRVMC reporting requirements for a two-year period. This suspension was published in the
At this time, the contract for the CDC barge reporting system has not been renewed, and the Coast Guard is still considering whether to enter into a new contract and lift the suspension, modify the reporting requirements in the RNA, or repeal the RNA completely. An extension of the stay is necessary while the Coast Guard continues to consider these options.
We believe prior notice and comment is unnecessary because we expect the affected public will have no objection to resuming the stay (suspension) of regulatory requirements that expired on January 15, 2013. The Coast Guard received no public comment or objection regarding the suspension that was in effect from 2011 until January 15, 2013. Prior notice and comment is also contrary to the public interest because there is no public purpose served by continuing to require reports when there is no mechanism for receiving or processing those reports.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a substantive rule that relieves a restriction may be made effective less than 30 days after publication. This temporary final rule, suspending the reporting requirements and thereby relieving the regulatory restriction on towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers provided by 33 CFR 165.921, is effective in the CFR on January 23, 2013 and, for purposes of enforcement, is effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 15, 2011.
The legal basis for this rulemaking is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas, under 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. An RNA is a water area within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established, to control vessel traffic in a place determined to have hazardous conditions. 33 CFR 165.10; Commandant Instruction Manual M16704.3A, 1-6.
The purpose of this temporary final rule is to resume the suspension of reporting requirements that was in place between January 2011 and January 15, 2013. This temporary rule relieves the towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges from the 33 CFR 165.921 reporting requirements for a nine month period.
During the suspension of reporting requirements, towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges will be relieved of their obligation to report their CDCs under 33 CFR 165.921(d), (e), (f), (g), and (h). This suspension in no way relieves towing vessel operators and fleeting area managers responsible for CDC barges
We developed this temporary final 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 that Order. This rule is temporary and limited in nature by extending the previously published suspension of CDC barge reporting requirements for an additional nine-month period, creating no undue delay to vessel traffic in the regulated area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some which may be small entities: Owners or operators of CDC barges intending to transit the Inland Rivers in the Ninth Coast Guard District during this nine month period. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on those entities or a substantial number of any small entities because this rule suspends reporting requirements for nine months.
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 calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
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 which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the nine-month extension of a previously
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone encompassing certain waters of the Potomac River and Anacostia River. This action is necessary to safeguard persons and property, and prevent terrorist acts or incidents. This rule prohibits vessels and people from entering the security zone and requires vessels and persons in the security zone to depart the security zone, unless specifically exempt under the provisions in this rule or granted specific permission from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. This action is intended to temporarily restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers during the event.
This rule is effective from January 15, 2013 until January 24, 2013.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2012-0938]. 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 Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Sector Baltimore Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2674, email
On October 24, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Security Zone, Potomac and Anacostia Rivers; Washington, DC” in the
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
On January 20, 2013, the U.S. Presidential Inauguration swearing-in ceremony will take place at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. Activities associated with the Presidential Inauguration include several Inaugural ceremonies, balls, parades and receptions in the District of Columbia, which are scheduled to occur from January 15, 2013 through January 24, 2013. During these activities, gatherings of high-ranking United States officials and the public-at-large are expected to take place. These activities are located along navigable waterways within the Captain of the Port Baltimore's Area of Responsibility. The Coast Guard has given each Coast Guard Captain of the Port the ability to implement comprehensive port security regimes designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities while still sustaining the flow of commerce.
The Captain of the Port Baltimore is establishing a security zone to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against the large gatherings of high-ranking United States officials, the public-at-large, and surrounding waterfront areas and communities would have. The security zone is necessary to safeguard life and property on the navigable waters before, during, and after activities associated with the Presidential Inauguration and will help the Coast Guard prevent vessels or persons from bypassing the security measures established on shore for the events and engaging in waterborne terrorist actions during the highly-publicized events.
The Coast Guard received one comment in response to the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held. What follows is a review of,
The commenter, Mr. David A. Bell, a resident of Hamburg, NY, stated his support for the Coast Guard's proposed temporary security zone.
The security zone is tailored to impose a minimum adverse affect on port operations and waterway users located within certain waters of the Potomac River and Anacostia River at Washington, DC during the event and its associated activities.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and 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. There is no vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing expected during the effective period, and vessels may seek permission from the Captain of the Port Baltimore to enter and transit the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or transit through or within the security zone during the enforcement period. Although the security zone will apply to the entire width of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port Baltimore. Before the effective period, maritime advisories will be widely available to the maritime community. Additionally, given the time of year this event is scheduled, the vessel traffic is expected to be minimal.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
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 involves establishing a temporary security zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1) All waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the north by the Francis Scott Key (U.S. Route 29) Bridge at mile 113.0, downstream to and bounded on the south between the Virginia shoreline and the District of Columbia shoreline along latitude 38°50′00″ N, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin; and
(2) All waters of the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the north by the 11th Street (I-295) Bridge at mile 2.1, downstream to and bounded on the south by its confluence with the Potomac River. All coordinates refer to datum NAD 1983.
(b)
(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing security zones found in 33 CFR 165.33.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. Vessels already at berth, mooring, or anchor at the time the security zone is implemented do not have to depart the security zone. All vessels underway within this security zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative. Permission may be requested prior to activation of the zone. To seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.
(c)
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of polymers of one or more diglycidyl ethers of bisphenol A, resorcinol, glycerol, cyclohexanedimethanol, neopentyl glycol, and polyethylene glycol, with one or more of the following: Polyoxypropylene diamine, polyoxypropylene triamine, N-aminoethyl-piperazine, trimethyl-1,6-hexanediamine isophorone diamine,
This regulation is effective January 23, 2013. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 25, 2013, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0615, is available at
Kerry Leifer, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8811; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0615 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before March 25, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0615, by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the
1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
7. The polymer's number average MW of 400,000 is greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.
Thus, the epoxy polymer meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in Unit III. 1. through 7., no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to the epoxy polymer.
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that the epoxy polymer could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of the epoxy polymer is 400,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since the epoxy polymer conforms to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found the epoxy polymer to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and the epoxy polymer does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that the epoxy polymer does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of the epoxy polymer, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the epoxy polymer.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established an MRL for the epoxy polymer.
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of the epoxy polymer from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
Although this action does not require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. As add such, to the extent that information is publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve changes to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) to EPA in five separate SIP submittals dated May 1, 2012, July 18, 2011, February 16, 2011, December 23, 2009, and December 4, 2008. The SIP revisions make changes to South Carolina's New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to adopt federal PSD requirements regarding fine particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0837 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
For information regarding the South Carolina SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404) 562-9352; email address:
EPA is proposing to approve portions of SIP submittals provided by SC DHEC to EPA on May 1, 2012,
Today's proposed action regarding the PSD provisions relate to EPA's PM
On October 20, 2010, EPA finalized the PM
As established in part C of title I of the CAA, EPA's PSD program protects public health from adverse effects of air pollution by ensuring that construction of new or modified sources in attainment or unclassifiable areas does not lead to significant deterioration of air quality while simultaneously ensuring that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with preservation of clean air resources. Under section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a PSD permit applicant must demonstrate that emissions from the proposed construction and operation of a facility “will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of any maximum allowable increase or allowable concentration for any pollutant.” In other words, when a source applies for a permit to emit a regulated pollutant in an area that meets the NAAQS, the state and EPA must determine if emissions of the regulated pollutant from the source will cause significant deterioration in air quality. Significant deterioration occurs when the amount of the new pollution exceeds the applicable PSD increment, which is the “maximum allowable increase” of an air pollutant allowed to occur above the applicable baseline concentration
For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline area for a particular pollutant emitted from a source includes the attainment or unclassifiable area in which the source is located as well as any other attainment or unclassifiable area in which the source's emissions of that pollutant are projected (by air quality modeling) to result in an ambient pollutant increase of at least 1 microgram per meter cubed (μg/m
In addition to PSD increments for the PM
South Carolina currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new and modified stationary sources. SC DHEC's PSD preconstruction rules are found at Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7-
South Carolina's May 1, 2012, SIP submittal adopts PM
Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review, and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air qualitycriteria—the science upon which the standards are based—and the standards themselves. EPA's regulatory provisions that govern the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR part 50—
On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour primary NAAQS for PM
On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone to 75 parts per billion (ppb) to provide increased protection of public health and welfare, respectively.
EPA is proposing to approve these change to South Carolina's NAAQS table at Regulation 61.62-5, Standard No. 2, based on a preliminary determination that these changes are consistent with EPA's regulations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 2008 lead NAAQS. Further, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's removal of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS from its SIP at Regulation 61.62-5, Standard No. 2, because this NAAQS has been revoked by the Agency for South Carolina areas.
South Carolina's July 18, 2011, SIP submittal removes the annual total suspended particulate (TSP) standard from South Carolina's NAAQS table.
South Carolina's May 1, 2012, submittal removes from the State's NAAQS table the PM
South Carolina's December 4, 2008, and February 16, 2011,
South Carolina's December 4, 2008, SIP submittal makes an administrative correction to subparagraphs 2.a.(i)(a) and (b) of Regulation 61-62.5, Standard 5, Section II, Part Q (
EPA is proposing to approve multiple submissions revising South Carolina's SIP to adopt the PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 F43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is being proposed for approval to apply PSD permitting program statewide including the Catawba Indian Nation. Accordingly, EPA and the Catawba Indian Nation discussed South Carolina's SIP submittals prior to today's proposed action. EPA notes that this rulemaking will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing approval of State Implementation Plan revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut. These SIP revisions consist of a demonstration that Connecticut meets the requirements of reasonably available control technology for oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds set forth by the Clean Air Act with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we are proposing approval of three single source orders. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before February 22, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0449 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In addition, copies of the State submittals are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.
Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1046, fax number (617) 918-0046, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On December 8, 2006, the State of Connecticut submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of information documenting how Connecticut complied with the reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require states to implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher) non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires RACT in states located in the ozone transport region (OTR). Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major VOC and nitrogen oxide emissions sources and for all sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by EPA which establishes a “presumptive norm” for RACT for a specific VOC source category. A related set of documents, Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents, exists primarily for NO
In 1997, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease such as asthma.
On November 29, 2005, EPA published a final rule in the
On December 8, 2006, Connecticut submitted a demonstration that its regulatory framework for stationary sources meets the criteria for RACT as defined in EPA's Phase 2 Implementation rule. The state held a public hearing on the RACT program on October 18, 2006. Connecticut's RACT submittal notes that their prior designation as a nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard resulted in the adoption of stringent controls for major sources of VOC and NO
The state's submittal identifies the specific control measures that have been previously adopted to control emissions from major sources of VOC emissions, reaffirms negative declarations for some CTG categories, and describes updates made to two existing rules to strengthen them so that they will continue to represent VOC RACT. Table 3 of Connecticut's submittal contains a summary of the previously-adopted measures for each of the CTG categories
In addition, Connecticut's submittal notes that no sources exist in the state for some CTG categories. Specifically, Table 3 of Connecticut's submittal makes negative declarations for the following CTG sectors:
1. Automobile coating.
2. Large petroleum dry cleaners.
3. Large appliance coating.
4. Natural gas and gas processing plants.
5. Flat wood paneling coating.
6. Control of VOC leaks from petroleum refineries.
Finally, Connecticut updated two existing VOC rules in order to continue their status as representing RACT. Namely, these are rules limiting emissions from cutback asphalt paving and solvent cleaning (metal degreasing). The original version of the state's cutback asphalt rule allowed use of cutback asphalt, with some restrictions, during the ozone season and provided exemptions for penetrating prime coat products and for long-term storage of asphalt. The state's updated rule removed these provisions and was submitted to EPA on January 8, 2009 and approved by EPA into the Connecticut SIP on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50595). Additionally, Connecticut updated its solvent cleaning rule to more closely reflect the OTC's 2001 model rule for this activity. The update included a limit on the vapor pressure used in cold cleaning solvents and operating practices to further reduce VOC emissions. Connecticut submitted its updated solvent cleaning rule to EPA on February 1, 2008, and EPA approved the revised rule into the Connecticut SIP within the August 22, 2012
As required, Connecticut's submittal addresses NO
Connecticut's submittal also points out that NO
In addition to these general, state-wide NO
Connecticut's review of its control program for major sources of VOC and NO
EPA has reviewed Connecticut's determination that it has adopted VOC and NO
Connecticut's submittal documents the state's VOC and NO
Furthermore, Connecticut notes that its participation within several NO
The state's submittal documents a substantial downward trend in NO
We have determined that these regulatory elements and the resulting reduction in VOC and NO
EPA does not anticipate any difficulties with enforcing the state's standards, as EPA has previously approved the rules Connecticut cites as the means by which RACT is implemented. Additionally, Connecticut acted to further reduce NO
EPA has evaluated the VOC and NO
Additionally, we are proposing approval of the VOC RACT orders for the following three companies described below:
Cyro Industries manufactures extruded polymer pellets that are molded into various shapes by the end user at its facility located in Wallingford. The facility operates VOC emitting process equipment including raw material storage tanks, monomer preparation equipment, polymer production extrusion lines, grafted rubber equipment, dye preparation and post coloring operations. Additionally, VOC emissions occur from fugitive leaks, and from a number of small process and space heaters.
Cyro Industries took ownership of the facility from American Cyanamid in 2005. Pursuant to Connecticut's section 22a-174-32(e)(6), Cyro submitted an alternative RACT compliance plan to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. The facility essentially requested that the VOC RACT requirements that had formerly been imposed on American Cyanamid pursuant to Connecticut RACT order 8012 be maintained as RACT. Connecticut reviewed this request and essentially agreed, issuing RACT order 8268 to Cyro Industries on February 28, 2007. The new order updated the equipment and process lines described in the prior order and ensures that VOC emissions are reduced by no less than 85%.
Sumitomo Bakelite, formerly named Vyncolit North American, Incorporated, produces fiberglass impregnated and resinous pellets at its facility in Manchester. There are seven separate process lines in use at the facility. The company submitted a request that their emissions be controlled via an alternative RACT compliance plan under section 22a-174-32(e)(6). Connecticut reviewed the facility's request and, on October 11, 2006, issued order 8245 to the facility. The order requires, among other things, that the facility comply with the following requirements: actual emissions may not exceed 45 tons of VOC for any consecutive 12 month period or exceed 8,889 pounds per month for any given month; process lines identified as EXT2 and EXT3 are not allowed to use VOC containing components except during the mixing process, and the vapor pressure of all materials used during the blending process shall be less than or equal to 1.0 millimeters of mercury measured at 18.5 degrees Centigrade; only non-VOC materials can be used in the manufacture of “DAP” products or in process line EXT1; and, emissions of VOC from new, non-extruded products shall not exceed 0.006 pounds of VOC per pound of non-extruded product produced. These requirements will yield a VOC reduction of approximately 76% at the facility.
The Curtis Packaging Corporation manufactures custom designed paperboard and cardboard packaging at its facility in Newtown using three sheet-fed offset lithographic printing presses. The facility is subject to EPA's 2006 CTG for lithographic printing. In an effort to comply with the requirements of that CTG, the company reformulated many of its fountain solutions with non-alcohol additives and ultra violet (UV) light cured inks seeking to meet the CTG's requirements. However, the facility was not able to meet the CTG's overall emission reduction requirement, and so submitted an alternative RACT compliance plan to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
Connecticut reviewed the company's request, and on May 1, 2007, issued order 8270 to the facility. The order requires, among other things, the following: fountain solutions must contain no alcohol additives, and must have a VOC content of 5% or less by weight, as applied; UV cured inks must be used instead of oil based inks; and, cleaning solutions are limited to 30% VOC by weight.
EPA has reviewed these single source VOC RACT orders, and agrees with Connecticut that they represent a RACT level of control for each facility. Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of these orders.
EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's December 8, 2006 SIP submittal that demonstrates that the state has adopted air pollution control strategies that represent RACT for purposes of compliance with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we are proposing approval of orders submitted by Connecticut on July 20, 2007 for Cyro Industries, Sumitomo Bakelite North America, and Curtis Packaging, as representing RACT for these three facilities.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) dated November 28, 2012. This SIP revision consists of two elements proposed for EPA approval. First, EPA is proposing to approve the “2008 Baseline Emissions Inventory and Documentation” included as Appendix A to the SIP revision. The emissions inventory was submitted to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements related to the Tacoma-Pierce County nonattainment area for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before February 22, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0712, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jeff Hunt at telephone number: (206) 553-0256, email address:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the 1997 PM
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. Effective December 14, 2009, EPA designated Tacoma-Pierce County (partial county designation) as a nonattainment area for the revised 2006 24-hour PM
Prior to Washington's SIP revision submittal, EPA issued a proposed finding on July 5, 2012, called a clean data determination, based upon certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the Tacoma-Pierce County nonattainment area had met the 2006 PM
Ecology's November 28, 2012 SIP revision contains two elements for proposed EPA approval, Appendix A and Appendix B. Appendix A, titled “2008 Baseline Emissions Inventory and Documentation,” was submitted to meet the obligation under CAA section 172(c)(3) for an emissions inventory. The 2008 base year emissions inventory includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of stationary point sources, stationary nonpoint sources, nonroad mobile sources, and onroad mobile sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory include PM
Appendix B of the SIP revision, titled “SIP Strengthening Rules,” contains the most recent version of
•
•
•
The SIP revision submitted by Ecology requests EPA approval of the revised PSCAA
EPA is proposing to approve Washington's SIP revision dated November 28, 2012, specifically Appendix A, “2008 Baseline Emissions Inventory and Documentation” and Appendix B, “SIP Strengthening Rules.” We have made the determination that this action is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments which will be considered before taking final action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed approval does not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated December 11, 2012. EPA did not receive a request for consultation.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for four chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This action would require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of the chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit the activity before it occurs.
Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this proposed rule. The following list of North American Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers, importers, or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemical substances subject to a final SNUR must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of a proposed or final SNUR, are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
EPA is proposing these SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for four chemical substances which were the subject of PMNs P-07-204, P-10-58, P-10-59, and P-10-60. These SNURs would require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
In the
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the four chemical substances that are the subject of this proposed rule, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
EPA is proposing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for four chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:
• PMN number.
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
• Basis for the TSCA section 5(e) consent order or, for TSCA non-section 5(e) SNURs, the basis for the SNUR (i.e., SNURs without TSCA section 5(e) consent orders).
• Tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficient information to evaluate the chemical substance (see Unit VIII. for more information).
• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this proposed rule.
The regulatory text section of this proposed rule specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits (i.e., limits on manufacture and importation volume) and other uses designated in this proposed rule, may be claimed as CBI. See Unit IX.
This proposed rule includes PMN substances P-10-58, P-10-59, and P-10-50 that are subject to “risk-based” consent orders under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) where EPA determined that activities associated with the PMN substances may present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. These consent orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The so-called “TSCA section 5(e) SNURs” on these PMN substances are proposed pursuant to § 721.160, and are based on and consistent with the provisions in the underlying consent orders. The TSCA section 5(e) SNURs designate as a “significant new use” the absence of the protective measures required in the corresponding consent orders.
This proposed rule also includes a SNUR on PMN substance P-07-204 that was not subject to a consent order under TSCA section 5(e). In this case, EPA did not find that the use scenario described in the PMN triggered the determinations set forth under TSCA section 5(e). However, EPA does believe that certain changes from the use scenario described in the PMN could result in increased exposures, thereby constituting a “significant new use.” This so-called “TSCA non-section 5(e) SNUR” is proposed pursuant to § 721.170. EPA has determined that every activity designated as a “significant new use” in all TSCA non-section 5(e) SNURs issued under § 721.170 satisfies the two requirements stipulated in § 721.170(c)(2), i.e., these significant new use activities, “(i) are different from those described in the premanufacture notice for the substance, including any amendments, deletions, and additions of activities to the premanufacture notice, and (ii) may be accompanied by changes in exposure or release levels that are significant in relation to the health or environmental concerns identified” for the PMN substance.
During review of the PMNs submitted for the four chemical substances that are subject to these proposed SNURs, EPA concluded that for three of the substances, regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substances. For one of the four substances, where the uses are not regulated under a TSCA section 5(e) consent order, EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 721.170 were met. The basis for these findings is outlined in Unit IV.
Based upon comments received from the September 21, 2012 direct final rule, the proposed SNUR for P-10-58, P-10-59, and P-10-60 has been amended to be consistent with the provisions of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order and the proposed SNUR for P-07-0204 has been amended to clarify the restriction at 721.80(j). This proposed rule includes the following changes:
1. Revision of paragraph (a)(2)(i) for the proposed SNUR on P-10-58, P-10-69, and P-10-60.
2. Revision of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) for the proposed SNUR for P-07-0204.
EPA is proposing these SNURs for specific chemical substances that have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this proposed rule:
• EPA would receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture, import, or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.
• EPA would have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing, importing, or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• EPA would be able to regulate prospective manufacturers, importers, or processors of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7.
• EPA would ensure that all manufacturers, importers, and processors of the same chemical substance that is subject to a TSCA section 5(e) consent order are subject to similar requirements.
Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at
To establish a significant “new” use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have undergone premanufacture review. TSCA section 5(e) consent orders have been issued for three chemical substances and the PMN submitters are prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders from undertaking activities which EPA is designating as significant new uses. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no other person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. For chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted at this time, EPA concludes that the uses are not ongoing. However, EPA recognizes that prior to the effective date of the final rule, when chemical substances identified in these SNURs are added to the TSCA Inventory, other persons may engage in a significant new use as defined in this proposed rule before the effective date of the final rule.
As discussed in the SNURs published in the
EPA has promulgated provisions to allow persons to comply with these SNURs before the effective date of the final rule. If a person meets the conditions of advance compliance under § 721.45(h), the person is considered exempt from the requirements of the SNUR.
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions are:
1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).
2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).
In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. In cases where EPA issued a TSCA section 5(e) consent order that requires or recommends certain testing, Unit IV. lists those tests. Unit IV. also lists recommended testing for TSCA non-section 5(e) SNURs. Descriptions of tests are provided for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to
In the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders for three of the chemical substances in this proposed rule, EPA has established production volume limits in view of the lack of data on the potential health and environmental risks that may be posed by the significant new uses or increased exposure to the chemical substances. These limits cannot be exceeded unless the PMN submitter first submits the results of toxicity tests that would permit a reasoned evaluation of the potential risks posed by these chemical substances. Under recent TSCA section 5(e) consent orders, each PMN submitter is required to submit each study before reaching the specified production limit. The SNURs contain the same production volume limits as the TSCA section 5(e) consent order. Exceeding these production limits is defined as a significant new use. Persons who intend to exceed the production limit must notify the Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days in advance of commencement of non-exempt commercial manufacture, import, or processing.
The recommended tests specified in Unit IV. may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
• Potential benefits of the chemical substances.
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
According to § 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and § 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers, importers, and processors of the chemical substances during the development of the direct final rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941.
This proposed rule would establish SNURs for four chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs, and in three cases, a TSCA section 5(e) consent order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
According to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action would not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection
On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601
1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.
A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this proposed rule.
This proposed rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit IX. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.
Therefore, the promulgation of these SNURs would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this proposed rule. As such, EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action would not have a 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This proposed rule would not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This proposed rule would not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor would it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this proposed rule.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, since this action would not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), would not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of public comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our October 2, 2012, 12-month petition finding and proposed rule to remove the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (
We will consider all comments received or postmarked on or before February 22, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all information received on
Jan Knight, Deputy Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600; facsimile 916-414-6712. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our October 2, 2012, 12-month finding and proposed rule to remove the valley elderberry longhorn beetle from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and to remove the designation of critical habitat (77 FR 60237). For more information on the specific information we are seeking, please see the October 2, 2012, proposed rule. You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and related documents on the Internet at
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
All comments for this reopening of the public comment period must be received or postmarked on or before the date shown in
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
On October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60237), we published, in the
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
We will consider all comments and information provided by the public and peer reviewers during this comment period in preparation of a final determination on our proposed delisting. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from our proposal.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to establish a nonessential experimental population (NEP) of the Topeka shiner (
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Dr. Paul McKenzie, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, telephone: 573-234-2132; facsimile: 573-234-2181. Direct all questions or requests for additional information to: TOPEKA SHINER QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, 101 Park DeVille Dr., Suite B, Columbia, MO 65203. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Services (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
We intend any final rule resulting from this proposal to be as effective as
Prior to issuing a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses, if provided to us, will become part of the supporting record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
We will hold two public meetings on the dates listed in the
In accordance with our policy, “Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,” which was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in this proposed rule. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following publication in the
The Topeka shiner was listed as endangered throughout its range on December 15, 1998 (63 FR 69008), and critical habitat was designated in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska on July 27, 2004 (69 FR 44736), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The 1982 amendments to the Act included the addition of section 10(j), which allows for the designation of reintroduced populations of listed species as “experimental populations.” Under section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may designate as an experimental population, a population of an endangered or threatened species that has been or will be released into suitable habitat outside the species' current range (but within its probable historical range, absent a finding by the Director of the Service in the extreme case that the primary habitat of the species has been unsuitably and irreversibly altered or destroyed). With the experimental population designation, the relevant population is treated as threatened for purposes of section 9 of the Act, regardless of the species' designation elsewhere in its range. Section 4(d) of the Act allows us to adopt whatever regulations are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a threatened species so the treatment of an NEP as a threatened species allows us broad discretion in devising management programs and special regulations for such a population. In these situations, the general regulations that extend most section 9 prohibitions to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31(a)) do not apply to the NEP, and the 10(j) rule contains the prohibitions and exemptions necessary and advisable to conserve the NEP.
Before authorizing the release as an experimental population of any population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an endangered or threatened species, and before authorizing any necessary transportation to conduct the release, the Service must find, by regulation, that such release will further the conservation of the species. In making such a finding, the Service uses the best scientific and commercial data available to consider: (1) Any possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species as a result of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for introduction elsewhere; (2) the likelihood that any such experimental population will become established and survive in the foreseeable future; (3) the relative effects that establishment of an experimental population will have on the recovery of the species; and (4) the extent to which the introduced population may be affected by existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area.
Furthermore, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.81(c), all regulations designating experimental populations under section 10(j) must provide: (1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental population, including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed location, actual or anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be released,
Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service must consult with appropriate State fish and wildlife agencies, local governmental entities, affected Federal agencies, and affected private landowners in developing and implementing experimental population rules. To the maximum extent practicable, section 10(j) rules represent an agreement between the Service, the affected State and Federal agencies, and persons holding any interest in land that may be affected by the establishment of an experimental population.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we must determine whether the experimental population is
For the purposes of section 7 of the Act, we treat an NEP as a threatened species when the NEP is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National Park Service, and section 7(a)(1) and the Federal agency conservation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act apply. Section 7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. When NEPs are located outside a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park Service unit, then, for the purposes of section 7, we treat the population as proposed for listing and only section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4) apply. In these instances, NEPs provide additional flexibility because Federal agencies are not required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to be listed. The results of a conference are in the form of conservation recommendations that are optional as the agencies carry out, fund, or authorize activities. Because the NEP is, by definition, not essential to the continued existence of the species, the effects of proposed actions on the NEP will generally not rise to the level of jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. As a result, a formal conference will likely never be required for Topeka shiners established within the NEP area. Nonetheless, some agencies voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect a proposed species. Activities that are not carried out, funded, or authorized by Federal agencies are not subject to provisions or requirements in section 7.
Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat shall not be designated for any experimental population that is determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot designate critical habitat in areas where we establish an NEP.
The Topeka shiner is a small, stout minnow. This shiner species averages 1.5 to 2.5 inches (in.) (3.81-6.35 centimeters (cm)) in length at maturity, with a maximum size around 3 in. (7.62 cm) (Service 1993, p. 4; Service 1998, p. 69008; Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) 2010, p. 9). The head is short, and the mouth does not extend beyond the front of the eye. The eye diameter is equal to or slightly longer than the snout. All fins are plain except for the tail fin, which has a chevron-shaped black spot at its base. Dorsal and pelvic fins each contain 8 rays (Service 1993, p. 4; Service 1998, p. 69008; MDC 2010, p. 9). The anal and pectoral fins contain 7 and 13 rays respectively, and there are 32 to 37 lateral line scales. Dorsally, the body is olive with a distinct dark stripe preceding the dorsal fin. A dusky stripe runs along the entire length of the lateral line (Service 1993, p. 4; Service 1998, p. 69008; MDC 2010, p. 9). The scales above this line are darkly outlined with pigment, appearing cross-hatched. Below the lateral line, the body lacks pigment, appearing silvery-white (Pflieger 1975, pp. 161-162; Pflieger 1997, p. 154; Service 1993, p. 4; Service 1998, p. 69008). Males in breeding condition have orange-red fins and “cheeks,” and the dark lateral stripe diffuses. A distinct chevron-like spot exists at the base of the caudal fin (Pflieger 1975, pp. 161-162; Pflieger 1997, p. 154; Service 1993, p. 4; Service 1998, p. 69008).
Topeka shiners spawn in pool habitats over green sunfish (
Topeka shiners are a schooling species found in mixed species schools consisting primarily of redfin (
Topeka shiners are found in pools and runs, and only rarely in riffles. In the northern portion of its range (Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota), the Topeka shiner is frequently found in off-channel aquatic habitat (Clark 2000, p. 7; Dahle 2001, p. 8; Berg
The Topeka shiner was once widespread and abundant in headwater streams throughout the Central Prairie Region of the United States. The species' range historically included much of Missouri, Iowa, and Kansas, as well as portions of Nebraska, South Dakota, and Minnesota (Bailey and Allum 1962, pp. 68-70; Cross 1970, p. 254; Gilbert 1988, p. 317). In Missouri, Topeka shiners historically occurred in most of the prairie and Ozark border portions of north and central Missouri. With the exception of a population known from Cedar Creek, a tributary of the Des Moines River in Clark County (Mississippi River basin), all Topeka shiner populations in Missouri are known from the Missouri River basin. The species once occupied portions of the Missouri, Grand, Lamine, Chariton, Crooked, Des Moines, Loutre, Middle, Hundred and Two, and Little Blue river basins (MDC 2010, p. 10). Since 1940, the species has been extirpated from many Missouri River tributaries, including Perche Creek, Petite Saline Creek, Tavern Creek, Auxvasse Creek, Middle River, Moreau River, Splice Creek, Slate Creek, Crooked River, Fishing River, Shoal Creek, Hundred and Two River, and Little Blue River watersheds (Bailey and Allum 1962, pp. 69-70; Pflieger 1971, p. 360; MDC 2010, p. 10). Topeka shiners were last observed in the following Missouri streams: Moniteau Creek headwaters in Cooper and Moniteau Counties (2008), Clear Creek (1992) and a tributary of Heath's Creek (1995) in Cooper and Pettis Counties, Bonne Femme Creek watershed in Boone County (1997), Sugar Creek and tributaries in Daviess and Harrison Counties (2008), Dog Branch in Putnam County (1990), and Cedar Creek in Clark County (1987) (MDC 2010, p. 10; Novinger 2011, pers. comm.). It is presumed Topeka shiners are extirpated from the Bonne Femme Creek watershed (MDC 2010, p. 10).
The Topeka shiner in Missouri exists in highly disjunct populations in a small fraction of its historical range. Sampling specifically for Topeka shiners during the early 1990s found this species at only 19 percent (14 of 72) of historical sites, and at only 15 percent (20 of 136) of the total sites sampled in Missouri (Gelwicks and Bruenderman 1996, p. 5). Additionally, the remaining populations were found to be smaller than they had been recorded historically. For example, over 300 Topeka shiners were recorded among 7 locations in Bonne Femme Creek from 1961 to 1983. However, during comparable surveys within the same watershed, in the 1990s, only six Topeka shiners were identified at two locations (Wiechman, MDC 2012, pers. comm.). The isolation and small size of the remaining populations makes them highly vulnerable to extirpation. Currently, remaining viable populations of Topeka shiners can be consistently found in only two Missouri stream systems: Moniteau Creek headwaters in Cooper and Moniteau Counties, and Sugar Creek headwaters in Daviess and Harrison Counties. Several other streams have produced samples of a few individuals in the past 25 years, but these occurrences are based on a very limited number of fish (MDC 2010, p. 10).
Restoring an endangered or threatened species to the point where it is recovered is a primary goal of the Service's endangered species program. Although a Service recovery plan has not been issued for the Topeka shiner, the MDC devised State-specific recovery criteria for the species in their 10-year Strategic Plan for the Recovery of the Topeka Shiner in Missouri (MDC 2010, p. 8). The recovery goal of this plan is to stabilize and enhance Topeka shiner numbers in Missouri by securing populations in seven streams. Seven populations would be equivalent to one half of the known populations sampled in Missouri since 1960. Two main criteria were established to accomplish the goal: (1) Reduce or eliminate major threats and restore suitable habitat in Moniteau Creek and Sugar Creek watersheds, and (2) introduce (or reintroduce) and establish secure populations in five additional streams (MDC 2010, p. 8). According to fisheries experts with the Missouri Department of Conservation and as outlined in MDC's strategic plan, the designation of a Topeka shiner NEP in Missouri is necessary to establish new populations in the State (MDC 2010, p. 26).
The MDC (2011a, pp. 1-2; 2011b, pp. 2-3; 2011c, p. 3) established six criteria for identifying possible reintroduction sites in Missouri: (1) Propagation and release sites are to be under public ownership; (2) ownership involves a partner committed to conservation; (3) proposed release sites are within relatively close proximity to existing Topeka shiner populations; (4) proposed release sites are within the overall historical range of the species in Missouri; (5) the overall condition of the stream (
Based on criteria outlined above for reintroduction sites, Little Creek headwaters in Harrison County; East Fork Big Muddy Creek in Gentry, Harrison, and Worth Counties; and tributaries of Spring Creek in Adair, Putnam, and Sullivan Counties have been identified for initial release efforts (MDC 2010, pp. 27-31). Although no historical records exist of Topeka shiner in the selected reintroduction sites, it is likely that the species once inhabited these waters. Our conclusion is based on the following: (1) The species was historically known from adjacent watersheds—Little Creek and Big Muddy Creek are located approximately 16-19 air miles (mi.) (25.75-30.58 air kilometers (km)) from extant sites in Harrison County, Missouri (Wiechman 2012, pers. comm.), and the Spring Creek watershed in Adair, Putnam, and Sullivan Counties is located approximately 11 air mi. (17.7 air km) (Novinger 2012, pers. comm.) from a historical location in Putnam County, Missouri; (2) habitat is identical or similar to currently occupied sites in Harrison County, Missouri; and (3) the proposed reintroduction sites have suitable habitat necessary for the successful establishment of the species (MDC 2011a, pp. 1-2).
The reintroduction areas would include both pond (similar to off-channel habitats used by the species elsewhere within its range) and stream habitats. Initial donor populations of Topeka shiner would originate from extant sites in Sugar Creek, Harrison County, and be propagated at MDC's Lost Valley Hatchery in Warsaw, Missouri. Future captive-breeding of the Topeka shiner would occur in pond habitats, and the progeny would be used to stock the NEP streams rather than continual use of the Lost Valley Hatchery (Novinger 2012, pers. comm.). The subsequent use of pond fish for ongoing reintroduction efforts would be dependent upon the success of propagation efforts at The Nature Conservancy's Dunn Ranch, MDC's Pawnee Prairie Natural Area (NA), and MDC's Union Ridge Conservation Area (CA) (see below) (Novinger 2012, pers. comm.).
Little Creek is a tributary to West Fork Big Creek in the greater Grand River drainage. The proposed NEP portion of the watershed is located in the headwaters of Little Creek and is estimated at 7,600 acres (ac) (3075 hectares (ha)). The area extends from the backwaters of Harrison County Lake, upstream to the headwaters of Little Creek, and includes all tributaries in this reach from the reservoir to headwaters. Specific reintroduction sites would be located in select ponds (greater than 8 feet (2.44 m) deep) and in headwater stream reaches on Dunn Ranch, which is owned and operated by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Dunn Ranch comprises the upper half of the watershed, and it has several characteristics that promote a successful reintroduction program (
Big Muddy Creek is a tributary to the East Fork Grand River drainage and its watershed covers 44,339 ac. Land use is predominately grassland (60 percent), containing minor components of cropland (16 percent) and deciduous forest (15 percent). Cropland is concentrated in the bottomland along the mainstem of Big Muddy Creek. Grassed uplands are mostly used for cattle grazing and hay production. Headwaters of Big Muddy Creek (upper 33 percent of watershed) lie within the Grand River Grasslands Conservation Opportunity Area (GRGCOA). Two notable properties within the GRGCOA portion of Big Muddy Creek include MDC's Pawnee Prairie Natural Area (NA) (476 ac) (192 ha) and TNC's Pawnee Prairie (500 ac) (202 ha), which are cooperatively managed for native prairie and associated wildlife (MDC 2011b, pp. 1-2).
The 10-year-old GRGCOA covers approximately 70,000 ac (28,327 ha) in northern Missouri and southern Iowa, with approximately 14,800 ac (5,989 ha) (21 percent) located within the Big Muddy Creek basin. In northern Missouri, GRGCOA is believed to have the greatest potential to restore a functioning tallgrass prairie ecosystem on a landscape scale. The MDC, TNC, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Service, and interested private landowners are working cooperatively to restore prairie, promote soil conservation practices, and enhance habitat for prairie chickens in this area. Prescribed burning is commonly used to help meet these objectives. Experimental patch-burn grazing on Pawnee Prairie NA is also being evaluated by MDC and Iowa State University (MDC 2011b, p. 2).
The eastern side of MDC's Emmet and Leah Seat Memorial (Seat) Conservation Area (CA) (2,030 ac) (821 ha) is located within the Little Muddy Creek basin, a lower sub-basin to Big Muddy Creek. Little Muddy Creek basin is located outside the GRGCOA. Seat CA is a mixture of old field, grasslands, cropland, and woodland habitats. The area features public hunting (deer, turkey, quail, small game), primitive camping, an archery range, 16 fishable ponds (totaling 13 ac), and a permanent stream. The area is managed primarily for upland game hunting (MDC 2011b, p. 2).
The Big Muddy Creek watershed, from its confluence with East Fork Grand River upstream through all headwaters, is included in the proposed NEP area for the following reasons: (1) There are no known fish barriers; (2) there are no reservoirs (except small farm ponds) with abundant predator fishes; and (3) stream size remains relatively small with habitat conditions comparable to those found in reaches of Sugar Creek where Topeka shiners occur. Big Muddy Creek is approximately 19 air miles (mi.) (30.58 air kilometers (km)) from extant sites in Harrison County, Missouri (Wiechman 2012, pers. comm.). East Fork Grand River is believed to effectively limit the potential for downstream migration of cyprinids given its higher densities of predator fishes (predominantly channel catfish) and minimal cover for small fish (MDC 2011b, p. 2). A physical barrier in the East Fork of the Grand River downstream of the proposed reintroduction site would prevent mixing of wild and reintroduced populations of Topeka shiners (MDC 2011b, p. 9).
Spring Creek is a tributary to the Chariton River, and its watershed covers 60,869 ac (24,632 ha). Land use is essentially limited to deciduous woodlands (41 percent) and grassland (39 percent), with only 10 percent cropland. Cropland is concentrated in the bottomland along the mainstem of Spring Creek and in the upper
The Spring Creek watershed, from its confluence with the Chariton River upstream through all headwaters is included in the proposed NEP area for the following reasons: (1) There are no known fish barriers; (2) there are no reservoirs (except small farm ponds) with abundant predator fishes; and (3) stream size remains relatively small, with habitat conditions comparable to those found in reaches of Sugar Creek where Topeka shiners occur. The Spring Creek watershed in Adair, Putnam, and Sullivan Counties is located approximately 47 air mi. (75.64 air km) (Wiechman 2012, pers. comm.) from extant sites in Harrison County, and the Spring Creek locations are not in any watershed where there are extant records of Topeka shiner (MDC 2011c, pp. 8-11). The Chariton River is believed to effectively limit the potential for downstream migration of Topeka shiners given its higher densities of predator fishes (predominantly channel catfish) and minimal cover for small fish (MDC 2011c, p. 2).
Initial reintroduction sites for Topeka shiners would be in at least six ponds and all suitable stream reaches on MDC's Union Ridge CA. Subsequent monitoring of Topeka shiners would be restricted to the middle-Spring Creek sub-basin of the Spring Creek watershed. Within Spring Creek, this sub-basin is believed to offer the greatest potential to establish a self-sustaining population of Topeka shiners, and the smaller size of the middle-Spring Creek sub-basin also allows for regional Fisheries staff to reasonably complete monitoring efforts and evaluate success (MDC 2011c, p. 2).
A subset of the ponds on Dunn Ranch, Pawnee Prairie, and Union Ridge CA determined to be suitable for the propagation of Topeka shiners would be treated with rotenone to remove potential predators prior to stocking (MDC 2011a, p. 2; MDC 20011b, p. 2; MDC 2011c, p. 3). Spawning gravel would also be added to littoral areas (0-1 meter deep). The success of reproduction in these ponds would be compared to ponds with bare soil bottom types that did not receive spawning gravel. Reducing predators and increasing spawning success should increase the likelihood of population establishment and survival.
There are apparently numerous reasons for the decline of the Topeka shiner throughout its range. Reductions and disappearance of many Topeka shiner populations appear to be related to a combination of physical degradation of habitat and species interactions (MDC 2010, p. 11). Physical degradation of habitat is primarily related to patterns of land use including destruction, modification and fragmentation of habitat resulting from siltation, reduced water quality, tributary impoundment, and reduction of water levels (MDC 2010, p. 11). These habitat alterations may have been caused by intensive agriculture, urbanization, and highway construction (Minckley and Cross 1959, p. 216; Cross and Moss 1987, p. 165; Pflieger 1997, p. 199; Tabor 1992, pp. 38-39; MDC 2010, p. 11). Bayless
The Topeka shiner in Missouri has declined in the presence of largemouth bass, bluegill, and blackstripe topminnow, and this decline coincided with the decline of other fishes considered generally tolerant of poor physical and chemical conditions but intolerant of species interactions (Winston 2002, p. 249). Schrank
Other unidentified factors may be responsible for the loss of the Topeka shiner from some streams and for localized undocumented fish kills. Further study is needed to determine the relative significance of habitat degradation versus species interactions as causes for the decline of the Topeka shiner. Koehle (2006, p. 26) found Topeka shiners to be tolerant of high water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen levels. Additional experimental studies would be particularly useful to elucidate the physiological tolerances and behavior of the Topeka shiner in addition to comparisons of the hydrology, water chemistry, physical habitat, land use practices, and fish communities in areas where the species persists and where it has been extirpated (MDC 2010, p. 11).
All proposed reintroduction sites are on public land, and are properly managed to prevent potential causes of extirpation (Pflieger 1997, pp. 154-155). In addition to implementing management techniques that will sustain headwater prairie stream habitat, efforts have been undertaken to eliminate potential predation by nonnative piscivorous fish (MDC 2010, pp. 26-31). Ponds on Dunn Ranch, Pawnee Prairie NA, and Union Ridge CA determined to be suitable for the
Initial donor populations of Topeka shiner would originate from extant sites in Sugar Creek, Harrison County, and from fish propagated at MDC's Lost Valley Hatchery in Warsaw, Missouri. Proposed NEP reintroductions would include pond and stream habitats within the Little Creek, Big Muddy Creek, and Spring Creek watersheds. Captive-reared fish would be stocked into stream and pond habitats by MDC fisheries personnel. Cooperators include MDC, TNC, and the Service. Topeka shiners that are subsequently and successfully reared in ponds on Dunn Ranch, Pawnee Prairie NA, and the Union Ridge CA would be placed into proposed stream habitats following established stocking protocols described in the reintroduction plans (MDC 2011a, 2011b, and 2011c). We do not anticipate that the removal of fish would have a deleterious effect on the genetics of the species, because only a sample of Topeka shiners in Sugar Creek would be collected.
Information on fish species composition and simple stream habitat conditions would be collected at sites throughout the proposed NEP portion of the Little Creek, Big Muddy Creek, and Spring Creek watersheds prior to initial stockings. Twenty-five sites with 3 pools per site that are at least 200 meters (m) in length would be selected using a Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) design (
Each pool would be sampled once with a 15-foot (ft) (4.57-m) x 6-ft (1.83-m), one-eighth-inch (0.32-centimeters (cm)) mesh drag seine to collect fish. To be more effective in narrow pools (width less than 6 m), the net may be shortened to facilitate sampling. Two nets hauled side-by-side would be used for wide pools between 10 and 20 m in width. All species present in a catch would be identified and categorized by apparent relative abundance: “low” is defined by low approximate number (fewer than 10 fish) and low approximate percent of total catch (less than 5 percent); “medium” (10-50 fish, less than 25 percent); or “high” (greater than 50 fish, greater than 25 percent). Presence of juvenile Topeka shiners (less than 40 millimeters (mm) total length) would be noted as an indication of spawning at each site.
Supplemental stockings of Topeka shiners or sunfish would be conducted for ponds or selected stream reaches on public properties within the greater NEP portion of Little, Big Muddy, and Spring creeks, if necessary. Criteria for such stockings would be determined by MDC fisheries personnel as needed and necessary to meet reintroduction goals outlined in MDC's 10-year Action Plan for the Topeka Shiner (MDC 2010, pp. 29-35). Supplemental stocking rates in ponds and streams would occur at the same rates described for initial stockings above.
Individual Topeka shiners used to establish an experimental population would be supplied by MDC's Lost Valley Hatchery in Warsaw, MO, propagated under the Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit #TE71730A. The donor population for the Lost Valley Hatchery is from sites in Sugar Creek, Harrison County, Missouri. Sugar Creek's Topeka shiner population is closest to the proposed reintroduction sites. Typical gear used for small cyprinids would be used to collect Topeka shiners, and they would be held at Lost Valley Hatchery until they could be stocked into pond and stream habitats at proposed reintroduction sites.
The 10-year Strategic Plan for the Recovery of the Topeka Shiner in Missouri (MDC 2010, pp. 29-35) and reintroduction plans for Topeka shiner in the Little Creek, Big Muddy Creek, and Spring Creek watersheds (MDC 2011a, pp. 1-9; MDC 2011b, pp. 1-11; MDC 2011c, pp. 1-11) contain
We would ensure, through our section 10 permitting authority and the section 7 consultation process, that the use of Topeka shiner from the donor population within the Sugar Creek Basin for releases into Little Creek, Big Muddy Creek, and Spring Creek is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species in the wild.
The proposed special rule that accompanies this section 10(j) proposed rule is designed to broadly exempt, from the section 9 take prohibitions, any take of Topeka shiners that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. We propose to provide this exemption because we believe that such incidental take of members of the NEP associated with otherwise lawful activities is necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species.
This designation is justified because no adverse effects to extant wild or captive Topeka shiner populations would result from release of progeny from the Sugar Creek population. There is no possibility of any transfer of disease or mixing of wild and reintroduced populations due to the distances involved between the donor population and proposed reintroductions, the watersheds involved, and the physical barriers associated with the Little Creek and Big Muddy Creek watersheds. The majority of the reintroductions would occur on managed public land, and exemptions from prohibition for activities on private land are not likely to result in the loss of the proposed NEP. Successful propagation of Topeka shiners in ponds at Dunn Ranch, Pawnee Prairie NA, and Union Ridge CA would provide a continual reservoir of Topeka shiners for supplemental stocking as needed. We expect that the reintroduction effort into Little, Big Muddy, and Spring creeks would result in the successful establishment of a self-sustaining population of Topeka shiners, which would contribute to the recovery of the species.
We conclude that the effects of Federal, State, or private actions and activities would not pose a substantial threat to Topeka shiner establishment and persistence in the Little Creek, Big Muddy Creek, and Spring Creek watersheds, because most activities currently occurring in the proposed NEP area are compatible with Topeka shiner recovery, and there is no information to suggest that future activities would be incompatible with Topeka shiner recovery. Most of the area containing suitable release sites with high potential for Topeka shiner establishment is managed by MDC or TNC through the following mechanisms:
(1) There are existing best management practices (BMPs) for Topeka shiners that are followed by MDC and TNC; these practices include recommendations to maintain the water quality and headwater stream habitat (MDC 2000, p. 1).
(2) Reintroduction plans have been developed for all proposed NEP sites (MDC 2011a, pp. 1-9; MDC 2011b, pp. 1-11; MDC 2011c, pp. 1-9).
(3) All proposed reintroduction sites are managed to maintain Topeka shiner habitat (MDC 2011a, pp. 1-9; MDC 2011b, pp. 1-11; MDC 2011c, pp. 1-9).
Management issues related to the proposed Topeka shiner NEP that have been considered include:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Evaluations of our reintroduction goal and objectives will require monitoring for at least 10 years following initial stockings. Initial success of the reintroduction efforts would be evaluated through annual sampling of ponds and selected stream reaches on public properties during the first 3 years following initial stockings. Pond sampling would include fall seining with at least five, one-fourth arc pulls around the shore. Catch rates (fish per pull) would be recorded for shiners and sunfish, and a subsample of up to 100 Topeka shiners would be used to evaluate natural reproduction. Topeka shiners that are less than 40 mm (1.6 inches) in length would be considered juveniles. Minnow traps may also be used as a comparison to seining data. Stream sampling would follow the methods described earlier for “Baseline Data” sampling. After the first 3 years, ponds stocked with Topeka shiners would be monitored biennially for 10 years. Stream monitoring would be continued annually for 10 years to measure changes in the distribution of Topeka shiners, other fishes in the watershed, and trends in stream habitat conditions. Program Presence (Hines 2006) software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters would be used to evaluate changes in occupancy and determine Topeka shiner use of Little Creek, Big Muddy, and Spring Creek watersheds.
The MDC would continue to monitor the donor population of Topeka shiners in Sugar Creek. Monitoring of the donor population would follow guidelines established in the 10-Year Strategic Plan for the Recovery of Topeka Shiner in Missouri (MDC 2010, pp. 55-60); however, occupancy modeling would follow the protocols and principles in MacKenzie
No other federally listed species occur within ponds or streams proposed for reintroductions; therefore, this monitoring would not be necessary.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(b) specify four elements that should be considered and support this finding: (1) Any possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species as a result of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for introduction elsewhere; (2) the likelihood that any such experimental population will become established and survive in the foreseeable future; (3) the relative effects that establishment of an experimental population will have on the recovery of the species; and (4) the extent to which the introduced population may be affected by existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area. The above analysis (see Background) addresses these required components.
Based on the above information, and using the best scientific and commercial data available (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find that releasing Topeka shiner into Little Creek, Big Muddy Creek, and Spring Creek would further the conservation of the species but that this population is not essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild.
In accordance with our policy on peer review, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will provide copies of this proposed rule to three or more appropriate and independent specialists in order to solicit comments on the scientific data and assumptions relating to the supportive biological and ecological information for this proposed NEP designation. The purpose of such review is to ensure that the proposed NEP designation is based on the best scientific information available. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period and will consider their comments and information on this proposed rule during preparation of a final determination.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601
The area that would be affected if this proposed rule is adopted includes the release areas in northern Missouri and adjacent areas into which Topeka
If adopted, this proposal would broadly authorize incidental take of the Topeka shiner within the NEP area, when such take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, such as agricultural activities, animal husbandry, grazing, ranching, road and utility maintenance and construction, other rural development, camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, vehicle use of roads and highways, and other activities in the NEP area that are in accordance with Federal, Tribal, State, and local laws and regulations. Intentional take for purposes other than authorized data collection or recovery purposes would not be permitted. Intentional take for research or recovery purposes would require a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit under the Act.
The principal activities on private property near the proposed NEP area are agriculture, rural development, and recreation. We conclude the presence of the Topeka shiner would not affect the use of lands for these purposes because there would be no new or additional economic or regulatory restrictions imposed upon States, non-Federal entities, or members of the public due to the presence of the Topeka shiner, and Federal agencies would only have to comply with sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the Act in these areas. Therefore, if adopted as proposed, this rulemaking is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts to activities on private lands within the NEP area.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) If adopted, this proposal will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. We have determined and certify under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
(2) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year (
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule would allow for the take of reintroduced Topeka shiners when such take is incidental to an otherwise legal activity, such as agricultural activities and other rural development, camping, hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads and highways, and other activities that are in accordance with Federal, State, Tribal, and local laws and regulations. Therefore, we do not believe that establishment of this NEP would conflict with existing or proposed human activities or hinder public use of the Little Creek, Big Muddy Creek, and Spring Creek or its tributaries.
A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule: (1) Would not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical invasion of property and (2) would not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation and recovery of a listed species) and would not present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered whether this proposed rule has significant Federalism effects and have determined that a federalism impact summary statement is not required. This rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we requested information from and coordinated development of this proposed rule with the affected resource agencies in Missouri. Achieving the recovery goals for this species in Missouri would contribute to its eventual delisting and its return to State management. No intrusion on State policy or administration is expected; roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments would not change; and fiscal capacity would not be substantially directly affected. The special rule would operate to maintain the existing relationship between the State and the Federal Government and is being undertaken in coordination with the State of Missouri. Therefore, this rule does not have significant Federalism effects or implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism impact summary statement under the provisions of Executive Order 13132.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and would meet the requirements of sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of the Order.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The reintroduction of native species into suitable habitat within their historical or established range is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4, 43 CFR 46.205, 43 CFR 46.210, and 516 DM 8.5 B(6).
In accordance with the presidential memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249), and the Department of Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, we have considered possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no tribal lands within the areas proposed for reintroductions. Therefore, no tribal lands would be affected by this rule.
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Because this action is not a significant energy action, no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is available at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the Service's Columbia, Missouri, Ecological Services Field Office (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(n) Topeka shiner (
(1)
(i) The NEP area for the Topeka shiner is within the species' historical range and includes those waters within the Missouri counties of Adair, Gentry, Harrison, Putnam, Sullivan, and Worth identified in paragraph (n)(5) of this section.
(ii) The Topeka shiner is not known to currently exist in Adair, Gentry, Putnam, Sullivan, and Worth Counties in Missouri, or in those portions of Harrison County, Missouri, where the NEP is proposed. Based on its habitat requirements and potential predation by other fish predators, we do not expect this species to become established outside this NEP area, although there is a remote chance it may.
(iii) We will not change the NEP designations to “essential experimental,” “threatened,” or “endangered” within the NEP area without a public rulemaking. Additionally, we will not designate critical habitat for this NEP, as provided by 16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).
(2)
(i) Except as expressly allowed in paragraph (n)(3) of this section, all the prohibitions of § 17.21 apply to the Topeka shiner NEP.
(ii) Any manner of take not described under paragraph (n)(3) of this section is prohibited in the NEP area.
(iii) You may not possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or export by any means, Topeka shiners, or parts thereof, that are taken or possessed in violation of paragraph (n)(3) of this section or in violation of the applicable State fish and wildlife laws or regulations or the Act.
(iv) You may not attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed any offense defined in paragraph (n)(2)(iii) of this section.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to request an extension of an approved information collection regarding the importation and transportation of meat and poultry products. This information collection is due to expire.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before March 25, 2013.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
FSIS is planning to request an extension of this approved information collection because it is due to expire on March 31, 2013.
Unless accounted for in an establishment's HACCP plan, meat and poultry products not marked with the mark of inspection and shipped from one official establishment to another for further processing must be transported under USDA seal to prevent such unmarked product from entering into commerce (9 CFR 325.5). To track product shipped under seal, FSIS requires shipping establishments to complete FSIS Form 7350-1 that identifies the type, amount, and weight of the product.
Foreign countries exporting meat and poultry products to the United States must establish eligibility for importation of product into the U.S., and annually certify that their inspection systems are “equivalent to” the U.S. inspection system (9 CFR 327.2 and 381.196). Additionally, meat and poultry products intended for import into the U.S. must be accompanied by a certificate, signed by an official of the foreign government, stating that the products have been produced by certified foreign establishments (9 CFR 327.2 and 381.197).
Maintenance of eligibility of a country for importation of products into the U.S. depends on the results of periodic reviews of each establishment listed in the certification (9 CFR 327.2 and 381.196). A written report must be prepared by the representative of the foreign government documenting the findings with respect to the effective operation of the system.
Meat and poultry products exported to the U.S. must be accompanied by a certificate signed by a responsible official of the exporting country (9 CFR 327.4 and 381.197).
Import establishments that wish to pre-stamp imported product with the inspection legend prior to FSIS inspection must submit a letter to FSIS requesting approval to do so (9 CFR 327.10(d) and 381.204).
FSIS has made the following estimates on the basis of an information collection assessment.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from John O'Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW., Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; phone: (202) 720-0345.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed
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.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY).
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), are sponsoring a public meeting on February 5, 2013. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions that will be discussed at the 23rd Session of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will be held in Langkawi, Malaysia, February 25-March 1, 2013. The Under Secretary for Food Safety and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 23rd Session of the CCFO and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 5, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The public meeting will be held at FDA, CFSAN, Harvey Wiley Building, Room 1A-002, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740. Documents related to the 23rd Session of the CCFO will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Martin J. Stutsman, U.S. Delegate to the 23rd Session of the CCFO, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 23rd Session of the CCFO by conference call, please use the call-in number and participant code listed below:
Martin Stutsman, J.D., Office of Food Safety, CFSAN, FDA, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: +1(240) 402-1642, Fax: +1(301) 436-2651, Email:
Marie Maratos, U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 4861, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: +1(202) 205-7760, Fax: +1(202) 720-3157, Email:
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in the food trade.
The CCFO is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards for fats and oils of animal, vegetable, and marine origin including margarine and olive oil.
The Committee is hosted by Malaysia.
The following items on the agenda for the 23rd Session of the CCFO will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Matters Referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and Other Codex Committees
• Proposed Draft Standard for Fish Oils
• Proposed Draft Amendment to Parameters for Rice Bran Oil in the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils
• Discussion Paper on the Amendment of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Sunflower Seed Oils
• Discussion Paper on Cold Pressed Oils
• Discussion Paper on the Amendment of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: High Oleic Soybean Oil
• Discussion Paper on the Amendment of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils for the addition of Palm Oil with High Oleic Acid OxG
• Discussion Paper on the Revision of the Limit for Campesterol in the Codex Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils
• Discussion Paper on the Amendment of the Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils: Content of Delta-7-Stigmastenol
• Reference to Acceptance/Voluntary Application in Codex Standards
• Other Business and Future Work
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the meeting. Members of the public may access copies of these documents (see
At the February 5, 2013, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 23rd Session of the CCFO, Martin Stutsman (see
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.
USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, or audiotape.) should contact USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY).
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of reestablishment of Committee.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice is announcing the reestablishment of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF). The Committee is being reestablished in cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The establishment of the Committee was recommended by a 1985 report of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Food Protection, Subcommittee on Microbiological Criteria, “An Evaluation of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Foods.” The current charter for the NACMCF is available for viewing on the NACMCF homepage at
Karen Thomas, Advisory Committee Specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Room 9-214D Patriots Plaza III, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. Telephone number: (202) 690-6620.
USDA is charged with the administration and the enforcement of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA). The Secretary of DHHS is charged with the administration and enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). These Acts help protect consumers by ensuring that food products are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
In order to assist the Secretaries in carrying out their responsibilities under the FMIA, PPIA, EPIA, and FFDCA, the NACMCF is being reestablished. The Committee will be charged with providing recommendations to the Secretaries on the development of microbiological criteria by which the safety and wholesomeness of food can be assessed, including criteria for microorganisms that indicate whether foods have been adequately and appropriately processed.
Reestablishment of this Committee is necessary and in the public interest because of the need for external expert advice on the range of scientific and technical issues that must be addressed by the FSIS and DHHS in meeting their statutory responsibilities. To address the complexity of the issues, the Committee is expected to meet one or more times annually.
Members will be appointed by the Secretary of USDA after consultation with the Secretary of the DHHS. Because of the complexity of matters addressed by this Committee, the Secretary may consult with other Federal Agencies, such as the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service, the Department of Defense's Defense Logistics Agency, and the DHHS' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for advice on membership appointments. Background materials are
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.
USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status.
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
Proposed collection; Comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the program for 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F. More specifically, 310B (e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932).
Comments on this notice must be received by March 25, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Deputy Administrator, Cooperative Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 3250, Washington, DC 20250, Telephone: 202-720-7558.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0040.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742.
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.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
In the Matter of:
On October 12, 2011, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, Jerome Stuart Pendzich (“Pendzich”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)) (“AECA”) . Specifically, Pendzich was convicted of knowingly and willfully attempting to export defense articles, that is, Level IV Ballistics Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI), to Bogota, Columbia without first having obtained a license or written approval from the United States Department of State. Pendzich was sentenced to 46 months of prison followed by three years of supervised release. Pendzich is also listed on the U.S. Department of State Debarred List.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
I have received notice of Pendzich's conviction for violating the IEEPA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Pendzich to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. I have received a submission from Pendzich. Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Pendzich's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Pendzich's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Pendzich had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
I. Until October 12, 2021, Jerome Stuart Pendzich, with last known addresses at: currently incarcerated at: Inmate Number 43550-074, FMC Lexington, P.O. Box 14500, Lexington, KY 40512, and with an address at: 209 Reece Hill Road, Hampton, TN 37658-3615, and when acting for or on behalf of Pendzich, his representatives, assigns, agents or employees (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
III. After notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Pendzich by affiliation, ownership, control or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be subject to the provisions of this Order if necessary to prevent evasion of the Order.
IV. This Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.
V. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until October 12, 2021.
VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Pendzich may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.
VII. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Pendzich. This Order shall be published in the
In the Matter of:
On June 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, James Allen Larrison (“Larrison”) was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
I have received notice of Larrison's conviction for violating IEEPA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Larrison to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. I have not received a submission from Larrison. Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Larrison's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Larrison's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Larrison had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
I. Until June 23, 2016, James Allen Larrison, with a last known address at: 211 Hope Drive, New Ringgold, PA 17960-9207, and when acting for or on behalf of Larrison, his representatives, assigns, agents or employees (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
III. After notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Larrison by affiliation, ownership, control or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be subject to the provisions of this Order if necessary to prevent evasion of the Order.
IV. This Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.
V. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until June 23, 2016.
VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Larrison may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.
VII. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Larrison. This Order shall be published in the
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 26, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meeting will be held in Room 4830 at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert Clark Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Mr. Todd DeLelle, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-4877; Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
The meeting will take place from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT. This meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment from 3:00-3:30 p.m. EDT. Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability and request for comment.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received a Tribal Resource Management Plan (TRMP) from the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), and an updated Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan (FMEP) for fishery management in the Snake River Basin in Northeast Oregon. The TRMP is provided pursuant to the Tribal 4(d) Rule; the FMEP is provided pursuant to the salmon and steelhead 4(d) Rule. This document serves to notify the public of the availability for comment of the proposed evaluation of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) as to how the NPT TRMP addresses the criteria in the ESA, and of the FMEP. NMFS also announces the availability of a supplemental draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the pending determination.
Comments and other submissions must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written responses to the application should be sent to Enrique Patiño, National Marine Fisheries Services, Salmon Management Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA
Enrique Patin
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Previously, NMFS had received fishery management plans for fisheries in tributaries of northeast Oregon. These plans, submitted by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife were the subjects of a draft environmental assessment and associated documents provided for public review and comment (76 FR 49735, August 11, 2011). Subsequent to that 30-day comment period, on February 17, 2012, NMFS received an updated TRMP from the NPT, addressing management of NPT fisheries in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Rivers. NMFS also received an updated FMEP from Oregon describing inclusion of spring/summer Chinook salmon fisheries in the Washington State portion of the Grande Ronde River to be managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on April 24, 2012. NMFS received additional comments clarifying aspects of the proposed actions. NMFS prepared a proposed evaluation of and pending determination on the NPT fishery plan, and updated the NMFS EA to incorporate the additional information.
The FMEPs and TRMPs propose to manage all spring/summer Chinook salmon fisheries to achieve escapement objectives. The FMEPs and TRMPs utilize a harvest rate with five tiers based on predicted adult abundance to each of the affected populations. The majority of the harvest is anticipated to come from hatchery-origin stocks. The FMEPs and TRMPs also describe a process to guide coordination of fishery design and implementation between the agencies implementing fisheries in the action area.
As required by the ESA 4(d) Rule for Tribal Plans (65 FR 42481, July 10, 2000 [50 CFR 223.209]), the Secretary must determine pursuant to 50 CFR 223.209 and pursuant to the government-to-government processes therein whether the TRMPs for fisheries in Northeast Oregon would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Snake River spring/summer and Snake River Basin steelhead. The Secretary must take comments on his pending determination as to whether the TRMPs address the criteria in the Tribal 4(d) Rule and in § 223.203(b)(4).
As specified in § 223.203(b)(4) of the ESA 4(d) Rule, NMFS may approve an FMEP if it meets criteria set forth in § 223.203(b)(4)(i)(A) through (I). Prior to final approval of an FMEP, NMFS must publish notification announcing its availability for public review and comment.
NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. NMFS expects to take action on three ESA section 4(d) TRMPs and two ESA section 4(d) FMEPs. Therefore, NMFS is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis with the inclusion of the additional proposed activities, including the range of reasonable alternatives and associated impacts of any alternatives.
The final NEPA, TRMP, and FMEP determinations will not be completed until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all public comments received during the comment period. NMFS will publish a record of its final action on the TRMPs in the
Under section 4 of the ESA, NMFS, by delegated authority from the Secretary of Commerce, is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) Rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. Limit 4 of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(b)(4)) further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(a)) do not apply to activities associated with fishery harvest provided that an FMEP has been approved by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005). The ESA Tribal 4(d) Rule (65 FR 42481, July 10, 2000) states that the ESA section 9 take prohibitions will not apply to TRMPs that will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery for the listed species.
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the availability for public review of the draft Recovery Plan (Plan) for the North Pacific right whale (
Comments on the draft Plan must be received by close of business on March 11, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by 0648- XC431, by any of the following methods:
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Shannon Bettridge (301-427-8437), email
Recovery plans describe actions beneficial to the conservation and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Northern right whale (
Because the current status of North Pacific right whales is unknown, the primary purpose of the draft Recovery Plan is to provide a research strategy to obtain data necessary to estimate population abundance, trends, and structure and to identify factors that may be limiting North Pacific right whale recovery. Criteria for the reclassification of the North Pacific right whale are included in the draft Recovery Plan. In summary, the North Pacific right whale may be reclassified from endangered to threatened when all of the following have been met: (1) Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the North Pacific right whale population satisfies the risk analysis standard for threatened status (has no more than a 1 percent chance of extinction in 100 years)
The population will be considered for delisting if all of the following can be met: (1) Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the total North Pacific right whale population in each ocean basin in which it occurs satisfies the risk analysis standard for unlisted status (has less than a 10 percent probability of becoming endangered in 20 years). Any factors or circumstances that are thought to substantially contribute to a real risk of extinction that cannot be incorporated into a Population Viability Analysis will be carefully considered before delisting takes place; and (2) none of the known threats to North Pacific right whales are known to limit the continued growth of populations. Specifically, the factors in 4(a)(l) of the ESA are being or have been addressed.
The time and cost to recovery is not predictable with the current information and global listing of North Pacific right whales. The difficulty in gathering data on North Pacific right whales and uncertainty about the success of passive acoustic monitoring in fulfilling data needs make it impossible to give a timeframe to recovery. While we are comfortable estimating costs for 50 years of plan implementation ($19.683 million), any projections beyond this date are likely to be too imprecise to predict. The anticipated date for removal from the endangered species list also cannot be determined because of the uncertainty in the success of recovery plan actions for North Pacific right whales. The effectiveness of many management activities is not known on a global level. Currently it is impossible to predict when such measures will bring the species to a point at which the protections provided by the ESA are no longer warranted, or even determine whether the species has recovered enough to be downlisted or delisted. In the future, as more information is obtained it should be possible to make more informative projections about the time to recovery, and its expense.
NMFS will consider all substantive comments and information presented during the public comment period in the course of finalizing this Plan. NMFS concludes that the Draft Recovery Plan meets the requirements of the ESA.
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of final determination and discussion of underlying biological analysis.
NMFS has evaluated the Tribal Resource Management Plan (Plan) submitted by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes) to NMFS pursuant to the limitation on take prohibitions for actions conducted under the Tribal Rule of section 4(d) for salmon and steelhead promulgated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The plan specifies fishery management activities in the Salmon River sub basin of Idaho. This document serves to notify the public that NMFS, by delegated authority from the Secretary of Commerce, has determined pursuant to the ESA Tribal 4(d) Rule for salmon and steelhead that implementing and enforcing the Plan will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
The final determination on the Plan was made on January 11, 2013.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Salmon Management Division, 1201 NE. Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
Enrique Patiño at (206) 526-4655, or email:
Chinook salmon (
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Sockeye (
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have submitted to NMFS a Tribal Plan describing the management of ceremonial and subsistence fisheries in the Salmon River basin in the State of Idaho. The objective of the Tribal Plan is to harvest spring Chinook salmon in a manner that does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU. Impact levels on the listed spring Chinook salmon populations in the ESU are specified by a sliding-scale harvest rate schedule based on run size and escapement needs as described in the Tribal Plan. The Tribal Plan sets maximum harvest rates for each management unit or population based on its status, and assures that those rates or objectives are not exceeded. A variety of monitoring and evaluation tasks to be conducted by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is specified in the Tribal Plan to assess the abundance of spring Chinook salmon and to determine fishery effort and catch. A comprehensive review of the Tribal Plan to evaluate whether the fisheries and ESA-listed salmon and steelhead populations are performing as expected will be done within the proposed fishery season and at the end of the proposed season.
Under section 4(d) of the ESA, the Secretary is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. NMFS has issued a final ESA 4(d) Rule for Tribal Plans adopting regulations necessary and advisable to harmonize statutory conservation requirements with tribal rights and the Federal trust responsibility to tribes (50 CFR 223.209).
This 4(d) Rule for Tribal Plans applies the prohibitions enumerated in section 9(a)(1) of the ESA. NMFS did not find it necessary and advisable to apply the take prohibitions described in section 9(a)(1)(B) and 9(a)(1)(C) to fishery harvest activities if the fisheries are managed in accordance with a Tribal Plan whose implementation has been determined by the Secretary to not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the listed salmonids.
As specified in the Tribal 4(d) Rule, before the Secretary makes a decision on the Tribal Plan, the public must have an opportunity to review and comment on the pending determination. NMFS made the proposed evaluation and pending determination available for public review, and the final evaluation and determination reflect consideration of comments received.
The management objective is for the Tribes to conduct fisheries in a manner that does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of listed Chinook salmon. The Plan includes provisions for monitoring and evaluation to assess fishing-related impacts on Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. Performance indicators include dam, weir, and redd counts, harvest estimates, and escapement with respect to escapement goals. The proposed Plan provides the framework through which Tribal salmon fisheries could be implemented while meeting requirements specified under the ESA.
The Tribes intend to engage in ceremonial and subsistence harvest of both hatchery and natural-origin spring/summer Chinook salmon. Annually, the Tribes would issue season regulations detailing the timing and season regulations for tributary fisheries consistent with this long-term Plan. Under the Plan, the Tribes would manage all Chinook salmon fisheries to achieve escapement objectives using population-specific, abundance-based harvest rate schedules to limit ESA take according to year-specific adult escapement abundances. As a result, weaker populations will sustain less harvest and as the number of predicted adults increase, the number of fish escaping to the spawning grounds will also increase.
To achieve its conservation objectives, the Plan employs a number of key strategies as part of their harvest conservation measures, including: (1) Fishery-related redistribution of the conservation burden historically borne by fisheries; (2) use of threshold points to restrict the take of ESA-listed fish; and (3) application of a sliding scale approach to determine appropriate ESA take limits on critically low runs as well as on healthier runs at levels that may not slow recovery.
The Plan includes provisions for annual reports that will assess compliance with performance standards established through the Plan. The monitoring and evaluation described in the Plan will focus on two primary performance indicators: adult and juvenile abundance, and the overall assessment of abundance and productivity measures for each population. Reporting and inclusion of new information derived from Plan research, monitoring, and evaluation activities provides assurance that performance standards will be achieved in future seasons.
NMFS published notice of its proposed evaluation and pending determination on the Plan for public review and comment on May 30, 2012 (77 FR 31835). The proposed evaluation and pending determination and an associated draft environmental assessment were available for public review and comment for 30 days.
NMFS received one set of comments, from the Nez Perce Tribe. Several comments were addressed in NMFS' final evaluation and recommended determination document, but no substantive changes were required to the Plan or the environmental
Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species listed as threatened. The ESA Tribal 4(d) Rule (50 CFR 223.209) states that the ESA section 9 take prohibitions will not apply to Tribal Plans that will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery for the listed species.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board. The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined in the section on Matters to be considered.
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 19, 2013, from 1:00-3:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Conference call. Public access is available at: NOAA, SSMC 3, Room 4527, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Md. Members of the public will not be able to dial in to this meeting.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
The meeting will include the following topics: (1) Presentation of the final report from Research and Development Portfolio Review Task Force; and (2) Review of the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Information Services Working Group. For the latest agenda, please visit the SAB Web site at
Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 11230, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-734-1156, Fax: 301-713-1459, Email:
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2013.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.334D.
These priorities are:
The full text of these priorities is included in the notice of final priorities for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2014 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
The Department plans to fully fund the GEAR UP College Savings Account Research Demonstration Project up-front; that is, all funds needed for grantees to fully implement the project for its five or six year duration will be allocated for that purpose at the commencement of the project period.
1.
2.
A grantee under this demonstration project may treat contributions of students, families, or others to a student savings account as a matching contribution in its project budget. If, however, during any project year non-Federal contributions to savings accounts are less than 50 percent of the total costs under this demonstration project, a State would have to ensure by the end of each project year that it had met the annual matching requirement through other non-Federal contributions to this project or over-matched non-Federal funds to its regular GEAR UP project.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.334D.
You also can request a copy of the application package from the following: Catherine St. Clair, Student Service, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., room 7056, Washington, DC 20006-8524. Telephone: (202) 502-7579 or by email:
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative (Part II) to no more than 25 pages. For purpose of determining compliance with the page limit, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12-point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limits do not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the budget narrative and summary form; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)—and, after July 24, 2012, with the System for Award Management (SAM)—the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active CCR or SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The CCR or SAM registration process may take five or more business days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at SAM.gov.
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the GEAR UP College Savings Account Research Demonstration Project, CFDA number 84.334D, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the GEAR UP State Grant competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time, or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days; or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Catherine St. Clair, Student Service, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., room 7056, Washington, DC 20006-8524. FAX: (202) 502-7857.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.334D), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
Catherine St. Clair, Student Service, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., room 7056, Washington, DC 20006-8524. Telephone: (202) 502-7579 or by email:
If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that on January 16, 2013, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), CFR 385.206 and sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e), Linden VFT, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Brookfield Energy Marketing, LP and Cargill Power Markets, LLC (Respondents) alleging that, Respondents failed to reimburse Complainant for PJM Transmission service costs under their Transmission Scheduling Rights Purchase Agreement (TSR Agreement). Complainant requests the Commission direct the Respondents to: (1) Reimburse Complainant in full for past invoices for PJM Transmission Service Costs associated with the Complainant's transmission facility and (2) timely pay Complainant in full for all future invoices for the duration of their TSR Agreements.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondents as listed in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
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
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed competing applications for a new license for the Scotland Hydroelectric Project (Commission Project Nos. 2662-012 and 12968-001). The Scotland Hydroelectric Project is located on the Shetucket River, in Windham County, Connecticut. The existing licensee for the project is FirstLight Hydro Generating Company (FirstLight). The competitor applicant for the Scotland Hydroelectric Project No. 12968 is the City of Norwich Department of Public Utilities (Norwich Public Utilities).
Staff has prepared a final environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes the potential environmental effects of relicensing the project as proposed by FirstLight and Norwich Public Utilities, and concludes that licensing the project with either proposal, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
For further information, contact Janet Hutzel at (202) 502-8675 or by email at
On February 3, 2012, Hydro Development, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project (Cascade Creek Project or project) to be located on Swan Lake and Cascade Creek, near Petersburg, Alaska. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) The existing Swan Lake with surface area of 574 acres and useable storage capacity of 22,500 acre-feet; (2) an outlet control structure consisting of a low-head weir and a 3-foot-high, 50-foot-wide crest gate; (3) a submerged siphon inlet with screens; (4) a tunnel and penstock system conveying flows from the lake siphon to the powerhouse including: (i) A 26-foot-long, 26-foot-wide, 98-foot-deep concrete lined vertical shaft containing 10-foot-diameter siphon piping and a siphon shutoff valve; (ii) a 12-foot-diameter, 12,700-foot-long unlined low pressure tunnel; (iii) a 14-foot-diameter, 1,320-foot-long unlined vertical shaft/vent; (iv) a 14-foot-diameter, 1,980-foot-long tunnel containing a 9-foot-diameter, 1,980-foot-long steel penstock; and (v) a 9-foot-diameter, 780-foot-long buried steel penstock; (5) a 140-foot-long, 80-foot-wide concrete and metal powerhouse with three 23.3-megawatt (MW), vertical-shaft Pelton turbine units having a total installed capacity of 70 MW; (6) a 450-foot-long, 40-foot-wide riprap-armored trapezoidal open-channel tailrace; (7) a new marine access facility, including a dock and barge landing ramp; (8) a 18.7-mile-long, 138-kilovolt transmission line consisting of buried, submarine, and overhead segments, with interconnection to the existing Scow Bay substation; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Cascade Creek Project would be 200 gigawatt-hours.
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
On March 31, 2010, the Commission issued a new license to Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) for the continued operation and maintenance of the Warrior River Hydroelectric Project No. 2165, located on the Black Warrior River and on the Sipsey Fork of the Black Warrior River, in Cullman, Walker, Winston, and Tuscaloosa Counties, Alabama.
Rehearing of an order on rehearing lies when the later order modifies the result reached in the original order in a manner that gives rise to a wholly new objection.
This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission of this rejection must be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this notice pursuant to section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825
National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Defense Programs, Department of Energy.
Notice of Intent to Establish the Defense Programs Advisory Committee (DPAC).
Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and in accordance with Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, § 102-3.65, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Defense Programs Advisory Committee (DPAC) will be established. The DPAC will provide advice and recommendations to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs on the stewardship and maintenance of the Nation's nuclear deterrent.
Additionally, the establishment of the Committee has been determined to be essential to the conduct of the Department's business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law and agreement. The Committee will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the rules and regulations in implementation of that Act.
The activities of the DPAC will include, but are not limited to:
a. Periodic reviews of the diverse, scientific and technical activities of the Office of Defense Programs including.
b. Ongoing analysis of the DP mission and its foundation in national strategic policy (including the Nuclear Posture Review, provisions of the New START Treaty and other relevant treaties).
c. Potential application of DP capabilities to broader national security issues.
d. Analysis of DP management issues, including facility operations and fiscal matters.
e. Where appropriate, analysis of issues of broader concern to NNSA.
DPAC is expected to be continuing in nature. The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will appoint no more than 15 members. Members will be selected to achieve a balanced committee of scientific and technical experts in fields relevant to the Office of Defense Programs. All members must possess a “Q” clearance.
The DPAC is expected to meet approximately two to four times per year. It is anticipated that certain DPAC meetings will be closed to the public due to the classified nature of the Committee's discussions. Meetings will be closed in accordance with FACA and its implementing regulations. Subcommittees may be utilized.
COL. Mark Visosky at (202) 287-5270.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), publishes two notices of intent to suspend issued by EPA. Each Notice of Intent to Suspend was issued following the Agency's issuance of a Data Call-In notice (DCI), which required the registrants of the affected pesticide products containing a certain pesticide active ingredient to take appropriate steps to secure certain data, and following the registrants' failure to submit these data or to take other appropriate steps to secure the required data. The subject data were determined to be required to maintain in effect the existing registrations of the affected products. Failure to comply with the data requirements of a DCI is a basis for suspension of the affected registrations under FIFRA.
Each Notice of Intent to Suspend included in this
Veronica Dutch, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8585;
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0848, is available at
The Notices of Intent to Suspend were sent via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), return receipt requested to, the registrants for the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
The registrants failed to submit the required data or information or to take other appropriate steps to secure the required data for their pesticide products listed in Table 2 of this unit.
1. You may avoid suspension under this notice if you, or another person adversely affected by this notice, properly request a hearing within 30 days of your receipt of the Notice of Intent to Suspend by mail or, if you did not receive the notice that was sent to you via USPS first class mail return receipt requested, then within 30 days from the date of publication of this
• Include specific objections which pertain to the allowable issues which may be heard at the hearing.
• Identify the registrations for which a hearing is requested.
• Set forth all necessary supporting facts pertaining to any of the objections which you have identified in your request for a hearing.
If a hearing is requested by any person other than the registrant, that person must also state specifically why he/she asserts that he/she would be adversely affected by the suspension action described in this notice. Three copies of the request must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk, 1900, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
An additional copy should be sent to the person who signed this notice. The
2. You may also avoid suspension if, within the applicable 30 day deadline period as measured from your receipt of the Notice of Intent to Suspend by mail or publication of this notice, as set forth in
Your product will remain suspended, however, until the Agency determines you are in compliance with the requirements which are the bases of this notice and so informs you in writing.
After the suspension becomes final and effective, the registrants subject to this notice, including all supplemental registrants of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., may not legally distribute, sell, use, offer for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver or offer to deliver, to any person, the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. Persons other than the registrants subject to this notice, as defined in the preceding sentence, may continue to distribute, sell, use, offer for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver or offer to deliver, to any person, the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. Nothing in this notice authorizes any person to distribute, sell, use, offer for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver or offer to deliver, to any person, the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. in any manner which would have been unlawful prior to the suspension.
If the registrations for your products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. are currently suspended as a result of failure to comply with another FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) Data Call-In notice or section 4 Data Requirements notice, this notice, when it becomes a final and effective order of suspension, will be in addition to any existing suspension, i.e., all requirements which are the bases of the suspension must be satisfied before the registration will be reinstated.
It is the responsibility of the basic registrant to notify all supplementary registered distributors of a basic registered product that this suspension action also applies to their supplementary registered products. The basic registrant may be held liable for violations committed by their distributors.
Any questions about the requirements and procedures set forth in this notice or in the subject FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) Data Call-In notice, should be addressed to the person listed under
The Agency's authority for taking this action is contained in FIFRA sections 3(c)(2)(B) and 6(f)(2), 7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.
Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board).
The meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on January 24, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102.
This meeting of the Board will be open to the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).
Notice; request for comment.
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), on behalf of its members, requests comment on this proposed guidance entitled “Social Media: Consumer Compliance Risk Management Guidance” (guidance). Upon completion of the guidance, and after consideration of comments received from the public, the federal financial institution regulatory agencies will issue it as supervisory guidance to the institutions that they supervise and the State Liaison Committee (SLC) of the FFIEC will encourage state regulators to adopt the guidance. Accordingly, institutions will be expected to use the guidance in their efforts to ensure that their policies and procedures provide oversight and controls commensurate with the risks posed by their social media activities.
Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2013.
Because paper mail received by the FFIEC is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions in the Washington, DC area, you are encouraged to submit comments by the Federal eRulemaking Portal, if possible. Please use the title “Social Media Comments” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
The FFIEC is proposing guidance to address the applicability of federal consumer protection and compliance laws, regulations, and policies to activities conducted via social media by banks, savings associations, and credit unions, as well as by nonbank entities supervised by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (collectively, financial institutions).
The six members of the FFIEC are the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA); the CFPB (collectively, the Agencies); and the State Liaison Committee (SLC). As part of its mission, the FFIEC makes recommendations regarding supervisory matters and the adequacy of supervisory tools to the Agencies. The FFIEC also develops procedures for examinations of financial institutions that are used by the Agencies. The Agencies expect that all financial institutions they supervise will effectively assess and manage risks associated with activities conducted via social media. Upon completion of the guidance, and after consideration of comments received from the public, the Agencies will issue it as supervisory guidance to the institutions that they supervise. Accordingly, such institutions will be expected to use the guidance in their efforts to ensure that their risk management practices adequately address the consumer compliance and legal risks, as well as related risks, such as reputation and operational risks, raised by activities conducted via social media. The SLC, which is composed of representatives of five state agencies that supervise financial institutions, was established to encourage the application of uniform examination principles and standards
Social media has been defined in a number of ways. For purposes of the proposed guidance, the Agencies consider social media to be a form of interactive online communication in which users can generate and share content through text, images, audio, and/or video. Social media can take many forms, including, but not limited to, micro-blogging sites (e.g., Facebook, Google Plus, MySpace, and Twitter); forums, blogs, customer review Web sites and bulletin boards (e.g., Yelp); photo and video sites (e.g., Flickr and YouTube); sites that enable professional networking (e.g., LinkedIn); virtual worlds (e.g., Second Life); and social games (e.g., FarmVille and CityVille). Social media can be distinguished from other online media in that the communication tends to be more interactive.
Financial institutions may use social media in a variety of ways, including marketing, providing incentives, facilitating applications for new accounts, inviting feedback from the public, and engaging with existing and potential customers, for example, by receiving and responding to complaints, or providing loan pricing. Since this form of customer interaction tends to be informal and occurs in a less secure environment, it presents some unique challenges to financial institutions.
The use of social media by a financial institution to attract and interact with customers can impact a financial institution's risk profile. The increased risks can include the risk of harm to consumers, compliance and legal risk, operational risk, and reputation risk. Increased risk can arise from a variety of directions, including poor due diligence, oversight, or control on the part of the financial institution. The proposed guidance is meant to help financial institutions identify potential risk areas to appropriately address, as well as to ensure institutions are aware of their responsibilities to oversee and control these risks within their overall risk management program.
The FFIEC is proposing this guidance to respond to requests that have been articulated to the Agencies by various participants in the industry for guidance regarding the application of consumer protection laws and regulations within the realm of social media. The FFIEC invites comments on any aspect of the proposed guidance. In addition, the FFIEC is specifically soliciting comments in response to the following questions:
1. Are there other types of social media, or ways in which financial institutions are using social media, that are not included in the proposed guidance but that should be included?
2. Are there other consumer protection laws, regulations, policies or concerns that may be implicated by financial institutions' use of social media that are not discussed in the proposed guidance but that should be discussed?
3. Are there any technological or other impediments to financial institutions' compliance with otherwise applicable laws, regulations, and policies when using social media of which the Agencies should be aware?
Please be aware that all comments received will be posted generally without change to
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),
The text of the proposed interagency Social Media: Consumer Compliance Risk Management Guidance follows:
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Board), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (collectively, the Agencies), and the State Liaison Committee (SLC) are issuing guidance to address the applicability of existing federal consumer protection and compliance laws, regulations, and policies to activities conducted via social media by banks, savings associations, and credit unions, as well as by nonbank entities supervised by the CFPB (collectively, financial institutions). The Agencies are responding to a need for guidance in this area that has been articulated to the Agencies by various participants in the industry. The guidance is intended to help financial institutions understand potential consumer compliance and legal risks, as well as related risks, such as reputation and operational risks associated with the use of social media, along with expectations for managing those risks. Although this guidance does not impose additional obligations on financial institutions, as with any new process or product channel, financial institutions must manage potential risks associated with social media usage and access.
The Agencies recognize that financial institutions are using social media as a tool to generate new business and interact with consumers. The Agencies believe social media, as any new communication technology, has the potential to improve market efficiency. Social media may more broadly distribute information to users of financial services and may help users and providers find each other and match products and services to users' needs. To manage potential risks to financial institutions and consumers, however, financial institutions should ensure their risk management programs provide oversight and controls commensurate with the risks presented by the types of social media in which the financial institution is engaged, including but not limited to, the risks outlined within this guidance.
Social media has been defined in a number of ways. For purposes of this guidance, the Agencies consider social media to be a form of interactive online communication in which users can generate and share content through text, images, audio, and/or video. Social media can take many forms, including, but not limited to, micro-blogging sites (e.g., Facebook, Google Plus, MySpace, and Twitter); forums, blogs, customer review web sites and bulletin boards (e.g., Yelp); photo and video sites (e.g., Flickr and YouTube); sites that enable professional networking (e.g., LinkedIn); virtual worlds (e.g., Second Life); and social games (e.g., FarmVille and CityVille). Social media can be distinguished from other online media
Financial institutions may use social media in a variety of ways including advertising and marketing, providing incentives, facilitating applications for new accounts, inviting feedback from the public, and engaging with existing and potential customers, for example by receiving and responding to complaints, or providing loan pricing. Since this form of customer interaction tends to be both informal and dynamic, and occurs in a less secure environment, it presents some unique challenges to financial institutions.
A financial institution should have a risk management program that allows it to identify, measure, monitor, and control the risks related to social media. The size and complexity of the risk management program should be commensurate with the breadth of the financial institution's involvement in this medium. For instance, a financial institution that relies heavily on social media to attract and acquire new customers should have a more detailed program than one using social media only to a very limited extent. The risk management program should be designed with participation from specialists in compliance, technology, information security, legal, human resources, and marketing. A financial institution that has chosen not to use social media should still be prepared to address the potential for negative comments or complaints that may arise within the many social media platforms described above and provide guidance for employee use of social media. Components of a risk management program should include the following:
• A governance structure with clear roles and responsibilities whereby the board of directors or senior management direct how using social media contributes to the strategic goals of the institution (for example, through increasing brand awareness, product advertising, or researching new customer bases) and establishes controls and ongoing assessment of risk in social media activities;
• Policies and procedures (either stand-alone or incorporated into other policies and procedures) regarding the use and monitoring of social media and compliance with all applicable consumer protection laws, regulations, and guidance. Further, policies and procedures should incorporate methodologies to address risks from online postings, edits, replies, and retention;
• A due diligence process for selecting and managing third-party service provider relationships in connection with social media;
• An employee training program that incorporates the institution's policies and procedures for official, work-related use of social media, and potentially for other uses of social media, including defining impermissible activities;
• An oversight process for monitoring information posted to proprietary social media sites administered by the financial institution or a contracted third party;
• Audit and compliance functions to ensure ongoing compliance with internal policies and all applicable laws, regulations, and guidance; and
• Parameters for providing appropriate reporting to the financial institution's board of directors or senior management that enable periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the social media program and whether the program is achieving its stated objectives.
The use of social media to attract and interact with customers can impact a financial institution's risk profile, including risk of harm to consumers, compliance and legal risks, operational risks, and reputation risks. Increased risk can arise from poor due diligence, oversight, or control on the part of the financial institution. As noted previously, this guidance is meant to help financial institutions identify potential risks to ensure institutions are aware of their responsibilities to address risks within their overall risk management program.
Compliance and legal risk arise from the potential for violations of, or nonconformance with, laws, rules, regulations, prescribed practices, internal policies and procedures, or ethical standards. These risks also arise in situations in which the financial institution's policies and procedures governing certain products or activities may not have kept pace with changes in the marketplace. This is particularly pertinent to an emerging medium like social media. Further, the potential for defamation or libel risk exists where there is broad distribution of information exchanges. Failure to adequately address these risks can expose an institution to enforcement actions and/or civil lawsuits.
The laws discussed in this guidance do not contain exceptions regarding the use of social media. Therefore, to the extent that a financial institution uses social media to engage in lending, deposit services, or payment activities, it must comply with applicable laws and regulations as when it engages in these activities through other media.
The following laws and regulations may be relevant to a financial institution's social media activities. This list is not all-inclusive. Each financial institution should ensure that it periodically evaluates and controls its use of social media to ensure compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and guidance.
Social media may be used to market products and originate new accounts. When used to do either, a financial institution must take steps to ensure that advertising, account origination, and document retention are performed in compliance with applicable consumer protection and compliance laws and regulations. These include, but are not limited to:
Truth in Savings Act/Regulation DD and Part 707.
○ If an electronic advertisement displays a triggering term, such as “bonus” or “APY,” then Regulation DD and Part 707 require the advertisement to clearly state certain information, such as the minimum balance required to obtain the advertised APY or bonus. For example, an electronic advertisement can provide the required information via a link that directly takes the consumer to the additional information.
Fair Lending Laws: Equal Credit Opportunity Act/Regulation B
○ The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as implemented by Regulation B,
○ As with all prescreened solicitations, a creditor must preserve prescreened solicitations disseminated through social media, as well as the prescreening criteria, in accordance with Regulation B.
○ When denying credit, a creditor must provide an adverse action notice detailing the specific reasons for the decision or notifying the applicant of his or her right to request the specific reasons for the decision.
○ It is also important to note that creditors may not, with limited exceptions, request certain information, such as information about an applicant's race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Since social media platforms may collect such information about participants in various ways, a creditor should ensure that it is not requesting, collecting, or otherwise using such information in violation of applicable fair lending laws. Particularly if the social media platform is maintained by a third party that may request or require users to provide personal information such as age and/or sex or use data mining technology to obtain such information from social media sites, the creditor should ensure that it does not itself improperly request, collect, or use such information or give the appearance of doing so.
○ The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap in the sale and rental of housing, in mortgage lending, and in appraisals of residential real property. In addition, the FHA makes it unlawful to advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap. This prohibition applies to all advertising media, including social media sites. For example, if a financial institution engages in residential mortgage lending and maintains a presence on Facebook, the Equal Housing Opportunity logo must be displayed on its Facebook page, as applicable.
Truth in Lending Act/Regulation Z.
○ Regulation Z requires that advertisements relating to credit present certain information in a clear and conspicuous manner. It includes requirements regarding the proper disclosure of the annual percentage rate and other loan features. If an advertisement for credit states specific credit terms, it must state only those terms that actually are or will be arranged or offered by the creditor.
○ For electronic advertisements, such as those delivered via social media, Regulation Z permits providing the required information on a table or schedule that is located on a different page from the main advertisement if that table or schedule is clear and conspicuous and the advertisement clearly refers to the page or location.
○ Regulation Z requires that, for consumer loan applications taken electronically, including via social media, the financial institution must provide the consumer with all Regulation Z disclosures within the required time frames.
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act
Deposit Insurance or Share Insurance. A number of requirements regarding FDIC or NCUA membership and deposit
○
○
○
If social media is used to facilitate a consumer's use of payment systems, a financial institution should keep in mind the laws, regulations, and industry rules regarding payments that may apply, including those providing disclosure and other rights to consumers. Under existing law, no
Electronic Fund Transfer Act/Regulation E.
Rules Applicable to Check Transactions. When a payment occurs via a check-based transaction rather than an EFT, the transaction will be governed by applicable industry rules
As required by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
At a minimum, internal controls include but are not limited to: Implementing an effective customer identification program; implementing risk-based customer due diligence policies, procedures, and processes; understanding expected customer activity; monitoring for unusual or suspicious transactions; and maintaining records of electronic funds transfers. An institution's BSA/AML program must provide for the following minimum components: a system of internal controls to ensure ongoing compliance; independent testing of BSA/AML compliance, a designated BSA compliance officer responsible for managing compliance, and training for appropriate personnel. These controls should apply to all customers, products and services, including customers engaging in electronic banking (e-banking) through the use of social media, and e-banking products and services offered in the context of social media.
Financial institutions should also be aware of emerging areas of BSA/AML
Under the regulations implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a depository institution subject to the CRA must maintain a public file that includes, among other items, all written comments received from the public for the current year and each of the prior two calendar years related to the institution's performance in helping to meet community credit needs, and any response by the institution, assuming the comments or responses do not reflect adversely on the “good name or reputation” of others. Depository institutions subject to the CRA should ensure their policies and procedures addressing public comments also include appropriate monitoring of social media sites run by or on behalf of the institution.
Privacy rules have particular relevance to social media when, for instance, a financial institution collects, or otherwise has access to, information from or about consumers. A financial institution should take into consideration the following laws and regulations regarding the privacy of consumer information:
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Privacy Rules and Data Security Guidelines.
○ A financial institution using social media should clearly disclose its privacy policies as required under GLBA.
○ Even when there is no “consumer” or “customer” relationship triggering GLBA requirements, a financial institution will likely face reputation risk if it appears to be treating any consumer information carelessly or if it appears to be less than transparent regarding the privacy policies that apply on one or more social media sites that the financial institution uses.
CAN-SPAM Act
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
○ Certain social media platforms require users to attest that they are at least 13, and a financial institution using those sites may consider relying on such policies. However, the financial institution must still take care to monitor whether it is actually collecting any personal information of a person under 13, such as when a child under 13 manages to post such information on the financial institution's site.
○ A financial institution maintaining its
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Reputation risk is the risk arising from negative public opinion. Activities that result in dissatisfied consumers and/or negative publicity could harm the reputation and standing of the financial institution, even if the financial institution has not violated any law. Privacy and transparency issues, as well as other consumer protection concerns, arise in social media environments. Therefore, a financial institution engaged in social media activities must be sensitive to, and properly manage, the reputation risks that arise from those activities. Reputation risk can arise in areas including the following:
Financial institutions should be aware that protecting their brand identity in a social media context can be challenging. Risk may arise in many ways, such as through comments made by social media users, spoofs of institution communications, and activities in which fraudsters masquerade as the institution. Financial institutions should consider the use of social media monitoring tools and techniques to identify heightened risk, and respond appropriately. Financial institutions should have appropriate policies in place to monitor and address in a timely manner the fraudulent use of the financial institution's brand, such as through phishing or spoofing attacks.
Working with third parties to provide social media services can expose
Even when a financial institution complies with applicable privacy laws in its social media activities, it should consider the potential reaction by the public to any use of consumer information via social media. The financial institution should have procedures to address risks from occurrences such as members of the public posting confidential or sensitive information—for example, account numbers—on the financial institution's social media page or site.
Although a financial institution can take advantage of the public nature of social media to address customer complaints and questions, reputation risks exist when the financial institution does not address consumer questions or complaints in a timely or appropriate manner. Further, the participatory nature of social media can expose a financial institution to reputation risks that may occur when users post critical or inaccurate statements. Compliance risk can also arise when a customer uses social media in an effort to initiate a dispute, such as an error dispute under Regulation E, a billing error under Regulation Z, or a direct dispute about information furnished to a consumer reporting agency under FCRA and its implementing regulations. A financial institution should have monitoring procedures in place to address the potential for these statements or complaints to require further investigation. Some institutions have employed monitoring software to identify any active discussion of the institution on the Internet.
The financial institution should also consider whether, and how, to respond to communications disparaging the financial institution on other parties' social media sites. To properly control these risks, financial institutions should consider the feasibility of monitoring question and complaint forums on social media sites to ensure that such inquiries, complaints, or comments are addressed in a timely and appropriate manner.
Financial institutions should be aware that employees' communications via social media—even through employees' own personal social media accounts—may be viewed by the public as reflecting the financial institution's official policies or may otherwise reflect poorly on the financial institution, depending on the form and content of the communications. Employee communications can also subject the financial institution to compliance risk as well as reputation risk. Therefore, financial institutions should establish appropriate policies to address employee participation in social media that implicates the financial institution. The Agencies do not intend this guidance to address any employment law principles that may be relevant to employee use of social media. Each financial institution should evaluate the risks for itself and determine appropriate policies to adopt in light of those risks.
Operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed processes, people, or systems. The root cause can be either internal or external events.
The identification, monitoring, and management of IT-related risks are addressed in the
Social media is one of several platforms vulnerable to account takeover and the distribution of malware. A financial institution should ensure that the controls it implements to protect its systems and safeguard customer information from malicious software adequately address social media usage. Financial institutions' incident response protocol regarding a security event, such as a data breach or account takeover, should include social media, as appropriate.
As noted previously, the Agencies recognize that financial institutions are using social media as a tool to generate new business and provide a dynamic environment to interact with consumers. As with any product channel, financial institutions must manage potential risks to the financial institution and consumers by ensuring that their risk management programs provide appropriate oversight and control to address the risk areas discussed within this guidance.
9:00 a.m. (Eastern Time), January 28, 2013.
10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to the public
1. Approval of the Minutes of the December 17, 2012 Board Member Meeting.
2. Thrift Savings Plan Activity Report by the Acting Executive Director.
a. Monthly Participant Activity Report.
b. Monthly Investment Performance Report.
c. Legislative Report.
3. Quarterly Investment Policy Report.
4. Quarterly Vendor Financials Review.
5. Annual Expense Ratio Report.
6. Annual Statement.
7. 2013 Board Meeting Calendar.
8. Personnel.
9. Procurement.
10. Security.
11. Legal.
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, January 24, 2013, 09:00 a.m. to January 24, 2013, 04:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 45, 45 Center Drive, Lower Level, Conference Room C1-C2, Rockville, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The time of the meeting has been changed from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. to 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Additionally, this meeting will not be webcast and there will be no opportunity to submit comments during the meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of minimum random drug testing rate.
The Coast Guard has set the calendar year 2013 minimum random drug testing rate at 25 percent of covered crewmembers. The Coast Guard will continue to closely monitor drug test reporting to ensure the quality of the information. The Coast Guard may set the rate back up to 50 percent of covered crewmembers if the positive rate for random drug tests is greater than 1 percent for any one year, or if the quality of data is not sufficient to accurately assess the positive rate.
The minimum random drug testing rate is effective January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. Marine employers must submit their 2013 Management Information System (MIS) reports no later than March 15, 2014.
Annual MIS reports may be submitted by mail to Commandant (CG-INV), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., STOP 7561, Washington, DC 20593-7581 or by electronic submission to the following Internet address:
The docket for this notice is available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Robert C. Schoening, Drug and Alcohol Program Manager, Office of Investigations and Casualty Analysis (CG-INV), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, telephone 202-372-1033. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
Under 46 CFR 16.230, the Coast Guard requires marine employers to establish random drug testing programs for covered crewmembers. Every marine employer is required by 46 CFR 16.500 to collect and maintain a record of drug testing program data for each calendar year and submit this data by March 15 of the following year to the Coast Guard in an annual Management Information System (MIS) report. Marine employers may either submit their own MIS reports or have a consortium or other employer representative submit the data in a consolidated MIS report.
The Coast Guard annually sets the minimum drug testing rate for the coming year. The purpose of setting a minimum random drug testing rate is to assist the Coast Guard in analyzing its current approach for deterring and detecting illegal drug abuse in the maritime industry, and to encourage employers to maintain a drug-free workplace with the incentive of a reduced testing rate (and associated reduced costs). In every year of testing through 2012, the random testing rate has been 50 percent. In accordance with 46 CFR 16.230(f)(2), the Commandant may lower this rate to 25 percent if, for 2 consecutive years, the positive drug test rate is less than 1 percent.
MIS data indicates that the positive rate for random drug tests was 0.77 percent in 2011 and 0.74 percent in 2010. The Commandant is exercising his discretion to reduce the required random drug testing rate for calendar year 2013 to 25 percent of covered crewmembers. The Commandant may reset the rate to 50 percent of covered crewmembers if the positive rate for random drug tests is greater than 1 percent for any one year, or if the quality of data is not sufficient to accurately assess the positive rate.
The Coast Guard commends marine employers and mariners for their efforts to create a drug-free workplace and encourages marine employers and drug testing service providers to continue to submit accurate, complete and timely MIS data.
This notice is issued under authority of 46 CFR 16.230(f), which requires the Coast Guard to publish the results of random drug testing for the previous calendar year's MIS data and the minimum annual percentage rate for random drug testing for the next calendar year, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0018, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a
Send your comments by February 22, 2013. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Susan L. Perkins, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-3398; email
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public
Send your comments by March 25, 2013.
Comments may be emailed to
Susan L. Perkins at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-3398.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
TSA Customer Comment Cards collect feedback, and the passenger may voluntarily provide contact information. TSA may use the contact information to respond to the passenger's comments. For passengers who deposit their cards in the designated drop-boxes, TSA staff at airports collect the cards, categorize comments, enter the results into an online system for reporting, and respond to passengers as appropriate. Passengers also have the option to mail the cards directly to the address provided on the comment card, which varies by airport.
In addition, the TSA Contact Center will continue to be available for passengers to make comments independently of airport involvement via the Talk to TSA internet application on the TSA Web site at
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 22, 2013. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 22, 2013. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
All written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
HUD created the Energy and Performance Information Center (“EPIC”) data system to track the amount and types of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) being implemented within Public Housing units (OMB Control Number 2577-0274). This revision expands the data collected to include the amount and type of Public Housing development, including development in conjunction with Low Income Housing Tax Credits; other planning collections and performance reports presently collected in hard copy; the Physical Needs Assessment; and modernization undertaken by PHAs through Energy Performance Contracts. The EPIC data system is necessary in order to support the Department's Agency Performance Goals (APGs), specifically APG # 4, Measure # 13 which sets numeric targets for completing green retrofits and creating energy efficient units. In addition to the direct support of HUD APG # 4, Measure # 13, the implementation of the EPIC data system will enable HUD to provide reports on the progress of EEMs completed with PIH funding. The EPIC data system will also improve PHA planning by making the five year plan and annual statement process electronic and also enabling HUD to aggregate this information in order to track APG # 2, Measure # 5, which sets goals for expanding the number of families housed. The EPIC data system will also allow improved tracking of the Energy Performance Contract process and will include the Physical Needs Assessment tool.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name/or OMB Control number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4160, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202.402.3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email Ms. Pollard at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number).
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The EPIC data system will gradually automate the collection of the five year plan and annual statement forms from grantees. These are required forms presently collected in hard copy on
Furthermore, the EPIC data system will be loaded with Physical Needs Assessment (“PNA”) data. This data being in the system coupled with the electronic planning process will streamline grantee planning.
The EPIC data system will collect information about the Energy Performance Contract (“EPC”) process such as energy efficiency improvement financed under an EPC, and construction start and completion date. It will also collect the energy efficiency improvements information on the types previously captured through the RAMPS for Public Housing Capital Fund Recovery grants. As the Department moves to shrink its energy footprint in spite of rising energy costs, clear and comprehensive data on this process will be crucial to its success.
Finally, the Department has prioritized in Agency Performance Goal # 2, Measure # 5 making housing more available for more families. In the light of the recent housing crisis, this goal has become simultaneously more challenging and more important. Tracking of the use of Federal funds paid through the Public Housing Capital Fund, the only Federal funding stream dedicated to the capital needs of the nation's last resort housing option, is crucial to understanding how the Department can properly and efficiently assist grantees in meeting this goal as well as assessing the Department's own progress. The EPIC data system will track development of public housing with Federal funds and through other means, including mixed-finance development.
section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the Department of the Interior, announce a public meeting of the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Advisory Committee (Committee).
The meeting will be held at the Bureau of Land Management Offices at 20 M Street SE., Conference Room 4016 & 4017, Washington, DC. There will also be a conference call line available for those unable to attend in person. To participate in the call as an interested member of the public, please contact Lisa Young (see
Lisa Young, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), 1849 C Street NW., MS 3559, Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 208-7586; fax (202) 208-5873; or email
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, we announce that the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Advisory Committee will hold a meeting.
Chartered in November 2011, the Committee is a discretionary advisory committee established under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of the Interior with recommendations on: (1) Developing a framework for the 21CSC, including program components, structure, and implementation, as well as accountability and performance evaluation criteria to measure success; (2) the development of certification criteria for 21CSC providers and individual certification of 21CSC members; (3) strategies to overcome existing barriers to successful 21CSC program implementation; (4) identifying partnership opportunities with corporations, private businesses or entities, foundations, and non-profit groups, as well as state, local, and tribal governments, to expand support for conservation corps programs, career training and youth employment opportunities; and (5) developing pathways for 21CSC participants for future conservation engagement and natural resource careers. Background information on the Committee is available at
The Committee will convene to discuss priorities for the first meeting of the National Council for the 21CSC, along with other committee business. The public will be able to make comment on Thursday, February 14, 2013 starting at 11:30 a.m. The final agenda will be posted on
Interested members of the public may present, either orally or through written comments, information for the Committee to consider during the public meeting. Due to the nature of this meeting, interested members of the public are strongly encouraged to submit written statements to the committee by COB Tuesday, February 12, 2013 so they can be reviewed and considered during the full committee meeting on Thursday, February 14, 2013.
Individuals or groups requesting to make comment at the public Committee meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 15 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact Lisa Young, DFO, in writing (preferably via email), by Wednesday, August 22, 2012. (
In order to attend this meeting, you must register by close of business Tuesday, February 12, 2013. The meeting is open to the public. Calls in lines are limited, so all interested in attending should pre-register, and at that time will be given the call in information. Please submit your name, email address and phone number to Lisa Young via email at
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
This notice lists programs or portions of programs that are eligible for inclusion in Fiscal Year 2013 funding agreements with self-governance Indian tribes and lists programmatic targets for each of the non-Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) bureaus in the Department of the Interior, pursuant to the Tribal Self-Governance Act.
This notice expires on September 30, 2013.
Inquiries or comments regarding this notice may be directed to Sharee M. Freeman, Director, Office of Self-Governance (MS 355H-SIB), 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240-0001, telephone: (202) 219-0240, fax: (202) 219-1404, or to the bureau-specific points of contact listed below.
Title II of the Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-413, the “Tribal Self-Governance Act” or the “Act”) instituted a permanent self-governance program at the Department of the Interior. Under the self-governance program, certain programs, services, functions, and activities, or portions thereof, in Interior bureaus other than BIA are eligible to be planned, conducted, consolidated, and administered by a self-governance tribe.
Under section 405(c) of the Tribal Self-Governance Act, the Secretary of the Interior is required to publish annually: (1) A list of non-BIA programs, services, functions, and activities, or portions thereof, that are eligible for inclusion in agreements negotiated under the self-governance program; and (2) programmatic targets for these bureaus.
Under the Tribal Self-Governance Act, two categories of non-BIA programs are eligible for self-governance funding agreements:
(1) Under section 403(b)(2) of the Act, any non-BIA program, service, function or activity that is administered by Interior that is “otherwise available to Indian tribes or Indians,” can be administered by a tribe through a self-governance funding agreement. The Department interprets this provision to authorize the inclusion of programs eligible for self-determination contracts under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638, as amended). Section 403(b)(2) also specifies, “nothing in this subsection may be construed to provide any tribe with a preference with respect to the opportunity of the tribe to administer programs, services, functions and activities, or portions thereof, unless such preference is otherwise provided for by law.”
(2) Under section 403(c) of the Act, the Secretary may include other programs, services, functions, and activities or portions thereof that are of “special geographic, historical, or cultural significance” to a self-governance tribe.
Under section 403(k) of the Tribal Self-Governance Act, funding agreements cannot include programs, services, functions, or activities that are inherently Federal or where the statute establishing the existing program does not authorize the type of participation sought by the tribe. However, a tribe (or tribes) need not be identified in the authorizing statutes in order for a program or element to be included in a self-governance funding agreement. While general legal and policy guidance regarding what constitutes an inherently Federal function exists, the non-BIA Bureaus will determine whether a specific function is inherently Federal on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of circumstances. In those instances where the tribe disagrees with the Bureau's determination, the tribe may request reconsideration from the Secretary.
Subpart G of the self-governance regulations found at 25 CFR part 1000 provides the process and timelines for negotiating self-governance funding agreements with non-BIA bureaus.
No comments were received.
Below is a listing by bureau of the types of non-BIA programs, or portions thereof, that may be eligible for self-governance funding agreements because they are either “otherwise available to Indians” under Title I and not precluded by any other law, or may have “special geographic, historical, or cultural significance” to a participating tribe. The list represents the most current information on programs potentially available to tribes under a self-governance funding agreement.
The Department will also consider for inclusion in funding agreements other programs or activities not listed below, but which, upon request of a self-governance tribe, the Department determines to be eligible under either
The BLM carries out some of its activities in the management of public lands through contracts and cooperative agreements. These and other activities, dependent upon availability of funds, the need for specific services, and the self-governance tribe demonstrating a special geographic, culture, or historical connection, may also be available for inclusion in self-governance funding agreements. Once a tribe has made initial contact with the BLM, more specific information will be provided by the respective BLM State office.
Some elements of the following programs may be eligible for inclusion in a self-governance funding agreement. This listing is not all-inclusive, but is representative of the types of programs that may be eligible for tribal participation through a funding agreement.
1. Minerals Management. Inspection and enforcement of Indian oil and gas operations: Inspection, enforcement and production verification of Indian coal and sand and gravel operations are already available for contracts under Title I of the Act and, therefore, may be available for inclusion in a funding agreement.
2. Cadastral Survey. Tribal and allottee cadastral survey services are already available for contracts under Title I of the Act and, therefore, may be available for inclusion in a funding agreement.
1. Cultural Heritage. Cultural heritage activities, such as research and inventory, may be available in specific States.
2. Natural Resources Management. Activities such as silvicultural treatments, timber management, cultural resource management, watershed restoration, environmental studies, tree planting, thinning, and similar work, may be available in specific States.
3. Range Management. Activities such as revegetation, noxious weed control, fencing, construction and management of range improvements, grazing management experiments, range monitoring, and similar activities, may be available in specific States.
4. Riparian Management. Activities such as facilities construction, erosion control, rehabilitation, and other similar activities, may be available in specific States.
5. Recreation Management. Activities such as facilities construction and maintenance, interpretive design and construction, and similar activities may be available in specific States.
6. Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management. Activities such as construction and maintenance, implementation of statutory, regulatory and policy or administrative plan-based species protection, interpretive design and construction, and similar activities may be available in specific States.
7. Wild Horse Management. Activities such as wild horse round-ups, adoption and disposition, including operation and maintenance of wild horse facilities may be available in specific States.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Jerry Cordova, Bureau of Land Management (MS L St-204), 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, telephone: (202) 912-7245, fax: (202) 452-7701.
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. To this end, most of the Reclamation's activities involve the construction, operation and maintenance, and management of water resources projects and associated facilities, as well as research and development related to its responsibilities. Reclamation water resources projects provide water for agricultural, municipal and industrial water supplies; hydroelectric power generation; flood control; outdoor recreation; and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitats.
Components of the following water resource projects listed below may be eligible for inclusion in a self-governance annual funding agreement. This list was developed with consideration of the proximity of identified self-governance tribes to Reclamation projects.
1. Klamath Project, California and Oregon
2. Trinity River Fishery, California
3. Central Arizona Project, Arizona
4. Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System, Montana
5. Indian Water Rights Settlement Projects, as authorized by Congress.
Upon the request of a self-governance tribe, Reclamation will also consider for inclusion in funding agreements, other programs or activities which Reclamation determines to be eligible under Section 403(b)(2) or 403(c) of the Act.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Mr. Kelly Titensor, Policy Analyst, Native American and International Affairs Office, Bureau of Reclamation (96-43000) (MS 7069-MIB); 1849 C Street NW., Washington DC 20240, telephone: (202) 513-0558, fax: (202) 513-0311.
Effective October 1, 2010, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONNR) moved from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (formerly MMS) to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget (PMB). The ONRR collects, accounts for, and distributes mineral revenues from both Federal and Indian mineral leases.
The ONRR also evaluates industry compliance with laws, regulations, and lease terms, and offers mineral-owning tribes opportunities to become involved in its programs that address the intent of tribal self-governance. These programs are available to self-governance tribes and are a good prerequisite for assuming other technical functions. Generally, ONRR program functions are available to tribes because of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1983 (FOGRMA) at 30 U.S.C. 1701. The ONRR program functions that may be available to self-governance tribes include:
1. Audit of Tribal Royalty Payments. Audit activities for tribal leases, except for the issuance of orders, final valuation decisions, and other enforcement activities. (For tribes already participating in ONRR cooperative audits, this program is offered as an option.)
2. Verification of Tribal Royalty Payments. Financial compliance verification, monitoring activities, and production verification.
3. Tribal Royalty Reporting, Accounting, and Data Management.
Establishment and management of royalty reporting and accounting systems including document processing, production reporting, reference data (lease, payor, agreement) management, billing and general ledger.
4. Tribal Royalty Valuation. Preliminary analysis and recommendations for valuation, and allowance determinations and approvals.
5. Royalty Internship Program. An orientation and training program for auditors and accountants from mineral-
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Shirley M. Conway, Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Policy, Management and Budget, 1801 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006, telephone: (202) 254-5554, fax: (202) 254-5589.
The National Park Service administers the National Park System, which is made up of national parks, monuments, historic sites, battlefields, seashores, lake shores and recreation areas. The National Park Service maintains the park units, protects the natural and cultural resources, and conducts a range of visitor services such as law enforcement, park maintenance, and interpretation of geology, history, and natural and cultural resources.
Some elements of the following programs may be eligible for inclusion in a self-governance funding agreement. This list below was developed considering the proximity of an identified self-governance tribe to a national park, monument, preserve, or recreation area and the types of programs that have components that may be suitable for contracting through a self-governance funding agreement. This list is not all-inclusive, but is representative of the types of programs which may be eligible for tribal participation through funding agreements.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Dr. Patricia Parker, Chief, American Indian Liaison Office, National Park Service (Org. 2560, 9th Floor), 1201 Eye Street NW.,
The mission of the Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Primary responsibilities are for migratory birds, endangered species, freshwater and anadromous fisheries, and certain marine mammals. The Service also has a continuing cooperative relationship with a number of Indian tribes throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Service's fish hatcheries. Any self-governance tribe may contact a National Wildlife Refuge or National Fish Hatchery directly concerning participation in Service programs under the Tribal Self-Governance Act. This list is not all-inclusive, but is representative of the types of Service programs that may be eligible for tribal participation through an annual funding agreement.
1. Subsistence Programs within the State of Alaska. Evaluate and analyze data for annual subsistence regulatory cycles and other data trends related to subsistence harvest needs, and facilitate Tribal Consultation to ensure ANILCA Title VII terms are being met as well as activities fulfilling the terms of Title VIII of ANILCA.
2. Technical Assistance, Restoration and Conservation. Conduct planning and implementation of population surveys, habitat surveys, restoration of sport fish, capture of depredating migratory birds, and habitat restoration activities.
3. Endangered Species Programs. Conduct activities associated with the conservation and recovery of threatened or endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); candidate species under the ESA may be eligible for self-governance funding agreements. These activities may include, but are not limited to, cooperative conservation programs, development of recovery plans and implementation of recovery actions for threatened and endangered species, and implementation of status surveys for high priority candidate species.
4. Education Programs. Provide services in interpretation, outdoor classroom instruction, visitor center operations, and volunteer coordination both on and off national Wildlife Refuge lands in a variety of communities, and assist with environmental education and outreach efforts in local villages.
5. Environmental Contaminants Program. Conduct activities associated with identifying and removing toxic chemicals, which help prevent harm to fish, wildlife and their habitats. The activities required for environmental contaminant management may include, but are not limited to, analysis of pollution data, removal of underground storage tanks, specific cleanup activities, and field data gathering efforts.
6. Wetland and Habitat Conservation Restoration. Provide services for construction, planning, and habitat monitoring and activities associated with conservation and restoration of wetland habitat.
7. Fish Hatchery Operations. Conduct activities to recover aquatic species listed under the Endangered Species Act, restore native aquatic populations, and provide fish to benefit Tribes and National Wildlife Refuges that may be eligible for a self-governance funding agreement. Such activities may include, but are not limited to: Taking, rearing and feeding of fish, disease treatment, tagging, and clerical or facility maintenance at a fish hatchery.
8. National Wildlife Refuge Operations and Maintenance. Conduct activities to assist the National Wildlife Refuge System, a national network of lands and waters for conservation, management and restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States. Activities that may be eligible for a self-governance funding agreement may include, but are not limited to: Construction, farming, concessions, maintenance, biological program efforts, habitat management, fire management, and implementation of comprehensive conservation planning.
The Service developed the list below based on the proximity of identified self-governance tribes to Service facilities that have components that may be suitable for contracting through a self-governance funding agreement.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Patrick Durham, Fish and Wildlife Service (MS-330), 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, telephone: (703) 358-1728, fax: (703) 358-1930.
The mission of the USGS is to collect, analyze, and provide information on biology, geology, hydrology, and geography that contributes to the wise management of the Nation's natural resources and to the health, safety, and well-being of the American people. This information is usually publicly available and includes maps, data bases, and descriptions and analyses of the water, plants, animals, energy, and mineral resources, land surface, underlying geologic structure, and dynamic processes of the earth. The USGS does not manage lands or resources. Self-governance tribes may potentially assist the USGS in the data acquisition and analysis components of its activities.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Kaye Cook, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192, telephone: (703) 648-7442, fax: (703) 648-7451.
The Department of the Interior has responsibility for what may be the largest land trust in the world, approximately 56 million acres. OST oversees the management of Indian trust assets, including income generated from leasing and other commercial activities on Indian trust lands, by maintaining, investing and disbursing Indian trust financial assets, and reporting on these transactions. The mission of the OST is to serve Indian communities by
A tribe operating under self-governance may include the following programs, services, functions, and activities or portions thereof in a funding agreement:
1. Beneficiary Processes Program (Individual Indian Money Accounting Technical Functions).
2. Appraisal Services Program. Tribes/consortia that currently perform these programs under a self-governance funding agreement with the Office of Self-Governance may negotiate a separate memorandum of understanding (MOU) with OST that outlines the roles and responsibilities for management of these programs.
The MOU between the tribe/consortium and OST outlines the roles and responsibilities for the performance of the OST program by the tribe/consortium. If those roles and responsibilities are already fully articulated in the existing funding agreement with the BIA, an MOU is not necessary. To the extent that the parties desire specific program standards, an MOU will be negotiated between the tribe/consortium and OST, which will be binding on both parties and attached and incorporated into the BIA funding agreement.
If a tribe/consortium decides to assume the operation of an OST program, the new funding for performing that program will come from OST program dollars. A tribe's newly-assumed operation of the OST program(s) will be reflected in the tribe's funding agreement.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Lee Frazier, Program Analyst, Office of External Affairs, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (MS 5140—MIB), 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240-0001, phone: (202) 208-7587, fax: (202) 208-7545.
During Fiscal Year 2013, upon request of a self-governance tribe, each non-BIA bureau will negotiate funding agreements for its eligible programs beyond those already negotiated.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the approved Recovery Plan for the Columbia Basin Distinct Population Segment of the Pygmy Rabbit (
An electronic copy of the recovery plan is available at
Chris Warren, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above Spokane address and telephone number.
We announce the availability of the approved Recovery Plan for the Columbia Basin Distinct Population Segment of the Pygmy Rabbit (Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit).
Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants is the primary goal of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
In 2007 we developed a draft recovery plan (Draft) for the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit in coordination with the Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit Recovery Team, which included representatives from two U.S. Department of the Interior bureaus (Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management), one U.S. Department of Agriculture bureau (Natural Resources Conservation Service), two State agencies (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Department of Natural Resources), Washington State University, The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Zoo, Foster Creek Conservation District, and several adjunct expert contributors. In order to address available new information, ongoing implementation of adaptive management measures, and prescribed changes to specific actions defined in the Draft, we developed an amendment to the draft recovery plan (Amendment) for the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit in 2011. Several of the above recovery team members also contributed to development of the Amendment and the final approved recovery plan.
Section 4(f) of the Act requires public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. From September 7 through November 6, 2007, we provided the Draft to the public and solicited comments (72 FR 51461). From June 29 through August 29, 2011, we provided the Amendment to the public and solicited comments (76 FR 38203). We considered all information we received during the public comment periods, along with comments solicited from expert peer reviewers, and have summarized that information and our responses to comments in an appendix to the final recovery plan. We welcome continuing comment on the recovery plan, and we will consider all substantive comments on an ongoing basis to inform the implementation of
Large-scale loss and fragmentation of native shrub steppe habitats, primarily for agricultural development, likely played a primary role in the long-term decline of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit. By 2001, the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit was imminently threatened by its small population size, loss of genetic diversity, and inbreeding depression, coupled with a lack of suitable protected habitats in the wild. To varying degrees, these influences continue to impact the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife began a captive breeding program for the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit in 2001 and an intercross breeding strategy in 2003. Due to severe inbreeding depression in the purebred captive animals, intercross breeding was conducted to facilitate genetic restoration of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit, and is considered essential for recovery efforts. Intercross breeding was accomplished through carefully controlled matings between the founding purebred Columbia Basin animals and pygmy rabbits of the same taxonomic classification from a discrete population in Idaho. The last known wild subpopulation of pygmy rabbits within the Columbia Basin was extirpated by early 2004, although other wild subpopulations may still exist on lands that have not yet been surveyed.
In March of 2007, 20 captive-bred, intercrossed pygmy rabbits were reintroduced to habitats historically occupied by the species in the Columbia Basin of central Washington. Through monitoring it was determined that these captive-bred animals experienced very high mortality over the first several weeks following their release, and none are believed to have survived. Following the development and implementation of appropriate adaptive management measures, reintroduction efforts were resumed in the summer of 2011. The new measures that have been implemented include additional releases of the captive-bred intercrossed pygmy rabbits, the capture and translocation of wild pygmy rabbits from populations outside of the Columbia Basin for inclusion in the reintroduction program, initiation of partially controlled field-breeding efforts, and improved protective measures during releases. As these new measures have been implemented, the need for continuing captive breeding efforts has steadily diminished, and captive breeding operations at the three cooperating facilities were discontinued by the end of July 2012.
The recovery plan prescribes a phased approach for recovery: (1) Removal or abatement of imminent threats to the population and potentially suitable shrub-steppe habitats in the Columbia Basin; (2) reestablishment of an appropriate number and distribution of free-ranging subpopulations over the near term; and (3) establishment and protection of a sufficiently resilient, free-ranging population that would be expected to withstand foreseeable long-term threats. This recovery strategy is oriented to dynamic adaptive management of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit and its habitat, consistent with the Service's Strategic Habitat Conservation process, which calls for an iterative process of biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, and monitoring and research. The biological planning and conservation design set forth in this recovery plan lay out the criteria for recovery and identify localities for implementing actions, while the recovery actions describe a process for implementing conservation on the ground, outcome-based monitoring to assess success, and ongoing assumption-driven research to test biological hypotheses important to management. To facilitate this strategy, specific near-term (i.e., 2012 to 2021) and more general long-term objectives and criteria have been established. In addition, revised implementation schedules will be developed, as necessary, to reflect the knowledge gained, accomplishments met, potential future constraints encountered, and consequent refinements to near-term recovery objectives, criteria, and/or actions as recovery progresses.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the public comment period for an application from the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Coordinator for an enhancement of survival permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The documents available for public review are a draft programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (Agreement) to reintroduce the federally endangered black-footed ferret on properties of voluntary participants across the species' range to further recovery of this species and a draft environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If you have previously submitted comments, please do not resubmit them, because we have already incorporated them in the public record and will fully consider them in our final decision.
Written comments must be submitted by February 22, 2013.
Send comments by U.S. mail to Kimberly Tamkun, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center, P.O. Box 190, Wellington, CO, 80549-0190, or via email to
Pete Gober, Black-footed Ferret Recovery
On December 19, 2012, we published a
For background and more information on the draft Agreement and EA, see our December 19, 2012, notice (77 FR 75185). For information on where to view the documents and how to submit comments, please see the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is seeking comments on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the collection of information for grants under the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development Office's Energy and Mineral Development Program authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0174. This information collection expires April 30, 2013.
Submit comments on or before March 25, 2013.
You may submit comments on the information collection to Catherine Freels, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 800, Knoxville, Tennessee 37929; email:
Catherine Freels, (865) 545-4315, extension 23.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, 25 U.S.C. 3503 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide grants to Indian tribes as defined in 25 U.S.C. 3501(4)(A) and (B).
The Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED) administers and manages the energy resource development grant program under the Energy and Minerals Development Program (EMDP). Congress may appropriate funds to EMDP on a year-to-year basis. When funding is available, IEED may solicit proposals for energy resource development projects from Indian tribes for use on Indian lands as defined in 25 U.S.C. 3501. The projects may be in the areas of exploration, assessment, development, feasibility, or market studies. Indian tribes that would like to apply for an EMDP grant must submit an application that includes certain information, and must assist IEED by providing information in support of any National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of application deadline.
In this notice, the Office of Self-Governance (OSG) establishes a March 1, 2013, deadline for Indian tribes/consortia to submit completed applications to begin participation in the tribal self-governance program in fiscal year 2014 or calendar year 2014.
Completed application packages must be received by the Director, Office of Self-Governance, by March 1, 2013.
Application packages for inclusion in the applicant pool should be sent to Sharee M. Freeman, Director, Office of Self-Governance, Department of the Interior, Mail Stop 355-G-SIB, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Dr. Kenneth D. Reinfeld, Office of Self-Governance, Telephone 202-208-5734.
Under the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-413), as amended by the Fiscal Year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-208), the Director, Office of Self-Governance may select up to 50 additional participating tribes/consortia per year for the tribal self-governance program, and negotiate and enter into a written funding agreement with each participating tribe. The Act mandates that the Secretary submit copies of the funding agreements at least 90 days before the proposed effective date to the appropriate committees of the Congress and to each tribe that is served by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) agency that is serving the tribe that is a party to the funding agreement. Initial negotiations with a tribe/consortium located in a region and/or agency which has not previously been involved with self-governance negotiations, will take approximately 2 months from start to finish. Agreements for an October 1 to September 30 funding year need to be signed and submitted by July 1. Agreements for a January 1 to December 31 funding year need to be signed and submitted by October 1.
The regulations at 25 CFR sections 1000.10 to 1000.31 will be used to govern the application and selection process for tribes/consortia to begin their participation in the tribal self-governance program in fiscal year 2014 and calendar year 2014. Applicants should be guided by the requirements in these subparts in preparing their applications. Copies of these subparts may be obtained from the information contact person identified in this notice.
Tribes/consortia wishing to be considered for participation in the tribal self-governance program in fiscal year 2014 or calendar year 2014 must respond to this notice, except for those tribes/consortia which are: (1) Currently involved in negotiations with the Department; or (2) one of the 107 tribal entities with signed agreements.
This information collection is authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0143, Tribal Self-Governance Program.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Needles Field Office, Needles, California intends to prepare an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan with an associated Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the sale of approximately 133 acres of public land and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the CDCA Plan amendment with associated EA. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until February 22, 2013. The BLM does not plan to hold any scoping meetings for this plan amendment. In order to be included in the analysis, all comments must be received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period. We will provide additional opportunities for public participation as appropriate.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the CDCA Plan amendment and associated EA by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
George R. Meckfessel, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, BLM Needles Field Office, telephone 760-326-7008; address 1303 S. U.S. Highway 95, Needles, CA 92363; email
The BLM is providing notice that the BLM Needles Field Office, Needles, California intends to prepare an amendment to the 1980 CDCA Plan with
The area described containing 133.19 acres lies entirely in San Bernardino County, California.
The State of California wishes to purchase the public lands described above for a point of entry facility for agricultural and commercial vehicle inspections. The public lands described above were not specifically identified for sale in the CDCA Plan, as amended, and a plan amendment is therefore required to process a direct sale. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the planning process.
The BLM anticipates that the EA will consider both a plan amendment and the subsequent sale of the land and has identified local land uses and input from local governments as the primary preliminary issue of concern. The BLM anticipates that the EA will include, at a minimum, input from the disciplines of land use planning, biology and archaeology. This plan amendment will be limited to an analysis of whether the public lands described above meet the criteria for sale in FLPMA at Section 203(a)(3), which states, “disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives,” which is the planning criteria for this amendment.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan amendment, and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the EA as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Intent to Collect Fees on Public Land in Clark County, ID.
Pursuant to applicable provisions of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Upper Snake Field Office is proposing to collect a reservation fee for large group sites at the Birch Creek Campground in Clark County, ID. Under Section 2(2) of the REA, Birch Creek Campground qualifies as a site wherein visitors can be charged an “Expanded Amenity Recreation Fee” authorized under section 3(g). In accordance with the REA, and the BLM's implementing regulations, the Upper Snake Field Office is proposing to charge a group site reservation fee of $35 per night for overnight camping within the Birch Creek Campground.
An analysis of the recreation site shows the proposed fees are reasonable and typical of similar sites in the area.
This notice initiates the public comment period. Comments by interested parties will be accepted in writing through July 22, 2013. New fees would begin no earlier than July 22, 2013.
New fee implementation is contingent upon a final review and approval recommendation by the Idaho Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) and the BLM Idaho State Director. The BLM Upper Snake Field Office will provide final public notice of the group site reservation fee collection for the Birch Creek Campground.
Comments may be submitted to Attention: Shannon Bassista, Bureau of Land Management Upper Snake Field Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83401, via email at
Shannon Bassista, BLM Upper Snake Field Office recreation planner at 208-524-7552 or by email at
The REA directs the Secretary of the Interior to publish a six-month advance notice in the
The Birch Creek Campground is located in Clark County, Idaho, approximately 75 miles northwest of Idaho Falls, Idaho, and 86 miles south of Salmon, Idaho. It is fairly remote and allows visitors to camp adjacent to the popular Birch Creek fishing area and enjoy the scenery of the Lemhi Mountain range. Visitors can also recreate with motorized vehicles on adjacent BLM- and U.S. Forest Service-managed lands.
There are approximately 60 campsites and four large identified group sites dispersed along a 5.5 mile stretch of Birch Creek. Approximately one-third of the campsites have picnic tables and fire rings. There are multiple restroom facilities throughout the campground. The campground is adjacent to Highway 28 and is accessed by one of three entrances. The BLM does not provide electricity or water at the individual campsites and there is no recreational vehicle (RV) dump station or refuse collection. The host site has hook-ups, and there is a water pump adjacent to the host site that allows visitors to fill up their RV tanks. This area is not currently a fee area.
The Upper Snake Field Office is proposing charging a fee for large groups to reserve one of the group sites to guarantee camping access for an entire group. The proposed group site reservation fee is classified as an “Expanded Amenity Fee” under REA and would only apply to visitors wanting to reserve a group site. The BLM receives 12-15 requests annually to reserve one of the group sites at Birch Creek Campground. Reasons for these requests vary: some want to reserve a campsite located near accessible restroom facilities, while others want to reserve the location for large family reunions or other special occasions. Without an amenity fee associated with the site, the BLM is unable to make such reservations, leaving visitors wishing to reserve a group campsite with the sole option of seeking exclusive use, with an accompanying fee of $200, which is prohibitive for most weekend campground users. Because the vast majority of identified campsites at Birch Creek Campground are individual, a reservation system for group campsites would not displace or inconvenience other campers. Based on these factors, visitors' willingness to pay a group reservation fee is expected to be high.
Outside of the proposed group site reservation fee, the BLM is not planning to assess fees for camping at Birch Creek Campground. Additionally, fees will not be charged for camping in designated group sites when the sites have not been reserved.
Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, North Slope Science Initiative, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, North Slope Science Initiative (NSSI)—Science Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held February 19-22, 2013, in Fairbanks, Alaska. The meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m. in Room 401, International Arctic Research Center (IARC), 930 Koyukuk Drive, University of Alaska Fairbanks campus, Fairbanks, Alaska. Public comment will be accepted between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 20, 2013.
Dennis Lassuy, Acting Executive Director, North Slope Science Initiative, AK-910, c/o Bureau of Land Management, 222 W. Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513, (907) 271-3212 or email
The NSSI STAP provides advice and recommendations to the NSSI Oversight Group regarding priority information needs for management decisions across the North Slope of Alaska. These priority information needs may include recommendations on inventory, monitoring, and research activities that contribute to informed resource management decisions. This meeting will include continued dialog for scenario planning for the North Slope and adjacent marine environments. Additionally, the STAP will continue with designing a long-term monitoring strategy for the North Slope.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Science Technical Advisory Panel through the Executive Director, North Slope Science Initiative. Each formal meeting will also have time allotted for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, transportation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the Executive Director, North Slope Science Initiative. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held Thursday and Friday, Feb. 21-22, 2013, at the Inn of the Lost Coast, 205 Wave Rd., Shelter Cove, California. On Feb. 21, the council will convene at 9 a.m. The meeting is open to the public. Public comments will be taken at 11 a.m. On Feb. 22, the council convenes at 8 a.m. and departs immediately for a field tour. Members of the public are welcome. They must provide their own transportation, food and beverages.
Nancy Haug, BLM Northern California District manager, (530) 224-2160; or Joseph J. Fontana, public affairs officer, (530) 252-5332.
The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Northwest California. At this meeting the RAC will discuss planning efforts for the Lost Coast Headlands and Lacks Creek areas of Humboldt County, hear an update on land use plan development for the Redding Field Office, plan upcoming work with BLM field offices and hear reports on the status of the BLM's participation in the Northwest Forest Plan and marijuana eradication on public lands. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Members of the public are welcome on field tours, but they must provide their own transportation and meals. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a temporary closure of public lands to motorized vehicles and other recreational uses is in effect on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lewistown Field Office within the Judith Mountains, northeast of Lewistown, Montana.
The area closure will remain in effect 2 years from the date this notice is published in the
Geoff Beyersdorf, Field Manager, 920 NE. Main Street, Lewistown, Montana 59457; 406-538-1900. 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.
This closure affects public lands along the Maiden Canyon Road in Fergus County, Montana. The closed section extends from the intersection of Maiden Canyon Road and Judith Peak Road to 4 miles west of Gilt Edge. This temporary closure responds to public safety needs during a project to repair severe road damage that resulted from near record runoff and flooding in the spring of 2011, combined with extreme icing conditions that exist through the winter months. The flooding created extensive damage on a 2-mile portion of the Maiden Canyon Road.
The most heavily used portion of the Maiden Canyon Road remains open for public use. However, driving and other recreational uses on the damaged portion of the Maiden Canyon Road are extremely unsafe due to a number of issues including: Steep, eroded banks; areas where the road is now in the active creek channel; falling trees where the flooding removed material around the root systems; seasonal snow or ice covering on the surface making extremely slick conditions; road shoulder damage with a vertical bank now encroaching in the driving lane; impassible road for towed or recreational vehicles; dangerous night driving conditions; and inclement weather further damaging this road section. Each of these factors increases the risk of an accident or incident and until these factors are repaired the area closure is necessary to protect the public health and safety and to enhance efficient project completion.
The BLM prepared an environmental assessment analyzing the potential environmental impacts of road repairs and a Categorical Exclusion Review for the temporary closure. The contracting and road repair work will be the responsibility of the Montana Department of Highways.
Construction activities will include surveying, staking out the work to be done, and the actual construction work. Stakes and other markings will need to be preserved for directing the work to be completed. For public safety reasons, vehicle traffic, pedestrian traffic and visitor use will be precluded during all of these activities.
The BLM will post closure signs at the main entry points to the road. The BLM will also post the closure order in the Lewistown Field Office and will keep the public informed as this project progresses via local and regional press releases and posting those releases online at:
Under the authority of Section 303(a) of the Federal land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)), 43 CFR 8360.0-7, and 43 CFR 8364.1, the BLM will enforce the following rule on the damaged portion of the Maiden Canyon Road in Fergus County, Montana: Visitors must not use motorized vehicles, hike or otherwise enter the public land within the closed area.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notification of Boundary Revision.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 460
Superintendent Patti Reilly, Governors Island National Monument, 10 South Street—Slip 7, New York, New York 10004, telephone (212) 825-3055.
The effective date of this boundary revision is January 22, 2013.
16 U.S.C. 460
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Consumer Expenditure Surveys: Quarterly Interview and Diary,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Submit comments on or before February 22, 2013.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
The BLS uses the Consumer Expenditure Surveys to gather information on expenditures, income, and other related subjects. These data are used periodically to update the national Consumer Price Index. In addition, the data are used by a variety of researchers in academia, government agencies, and the private sector. The data are collected from a national probability sample of households designed to represent the total civilian non-institutional population. The proposed revisions to this ICR fall into two major categories: streamlining the current questions and updating and deleting several questions to reflect the current marketplace.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its request for an extension of the information collection requirements specified in its standards on Electrical Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910.137) and Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution (29 CFR 1910.269).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 25, 2013.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
The Electrical Protective Equipment Standard (29 CFR 1910.137) and the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Standard (29 CFR 1910.269) specify several paperwork requirements. The following describes the information collection requirements contained in the standards and addresses who will use the information.
Employers must certify that the electrical protective equipment used by their workers have passed the tests specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(viii), (b)(2)(ix), and (b)(2)(xi) of the Standard. The certification must identify the equipment that passed the tests and the dates of the tests. This provision ensures that electrical protective equipment is reliable and safe for worker use and will provide adequate protection against electrical hazards. In addition, certification enables OSHA to determine if employers are in compliance with the equipment-testing requirements of the Standard.
This provision requires employers to certify that each worker has received the training specified in paragraph (a)(2) of the Standard. Employers must provide certification after a worker demonstrates proficiency in the work practices involved.
The training conducted under paragraph (a)(2) of the Standard must ensure that: Workers are familiar with the safety-related work practices, safety procedures, and other procedures, as well as any additional safety requirements in the Standard that
Workers must receive additional training or retraining if: the supervision and annual inspections required by the Standard indicate that they are not complying with the required safety-related work practices; new technology or equipment, or revised procedures, require the use of safety-related work practices that differ from their usual safety practices; and they use safety-related work practices that are different than their usual safety practices while performing job duties.
The training requirements of the Standard inform workers of the safety hazards of electrical exposure and provide them with the understanding required to minimize these safety hazards. In addition, workers receive proper training in safety-related work practices, safety procedures, and other safety requirements specified in the standard. The required training, therefore, provides information to workers that enable them to recognize how and where electrical exposures occur, and what steps to take, including work practices, to limit such exposure. The certification requirement specified by paragraph (a)(2)(vii) of the Standard helps employers monitor the training their workers received and helps OSHA determine if employers provided the required training to their workers.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collection of information requirements contained in the Standards on Electrical Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910.137), and Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution (29 CFR 1910.269). The Agency is proposing to decrease the burden hours in the currently approved information collection request from 34,208 hours to 8,218 hours (a total decrease of 25,990 hours). The decrease is a result of a decrease in the number of burden hours for test certification. The Agency has determined that it is usual and customary for employers to have or stamp the test date on electrical protective equipment.
The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Ms. Frances Teel, NASA Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Ms. Frances Teel, NASA Clearance Officer/JF000, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546 or
The LISTS (Locator and Information Services Tracking System) form is used at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center to collect locator information on support contractors when the information cannot be imported from other systems. The LISTS also serves as repository for contact information in the event of an emergency during or outside official duty hours. Information collected is also used for short and long-term institutional planning.
The preferred method of collection is electronic. Approximately 60% of the data is collected electronically by means of a data entry screen that duplicates the Goddard Space Flight Center form GSFC 24-27 in the LISTS system. The remaining 40% of the data is keyed into the system from submissions of a hardcopy version of form GSFC 24-27.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice of Funding Opportunity.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is issuing a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to invite eligible credit unions to submit applications for participation in the OSCUI Loan Program (a.k.a. Community Development Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF)), subject to funding availability. The OSCUI Loan Program serves as a source of financial support, in the form of loans, for credit unions serving predominantly low-income members. It also serves as a source of funding to help low-income designated credit unions (LICUs) respond to emergencies arising in their communities.
The application open period is from January 1, 2013 thru December 31, 2013. Funds may be exhausted prior to this deadline, at which time the programs/funds will no longer be available.
Applications must be submitted online at
Further information can be found at:
The purpose of the OSCUI Loan Program is to assist specially designated credit unions in providing basic financial services to their low-income members to stimulate economic activities in their communities. Through the OSCUI Loan Program, NCUA provides financial support in the form of loans to LICUs. These funds help improve and expand the availability of financial services to these members. The OSCUI Loan Program also serves as a source of funding to help LICUs respond to emergencies. The Loan Program consists of Congressional appropriations that are administered by OSCUI, an office of the NCUA.
A.
B.
OSCUI loans are made to LICUs that meet the requirements in the program regulation and this NOFO, subject to funds availability. OSCUI loans are generally made at lower than market interest rates.
A.
Following are additional requirements for participating in the Loan Program under this NOFO. In short, an Applicant must:
○ Be a Qualifying Credit Union (QCU);
○ Meet the underwriting standards and program requirements specified in the Regulations and this NOFO; and
○ Complete and submit an Application (see Section III. of this NOFO for additional information).
1.
B.
NCUA will consider other proposed uses of funds that in its sole discretion it determines are consistent with the purpose of the OSCUI Loan Program, the requirements of the regulations, and this NOFO.
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
D.
1.
2.
(a)
(i) The amount of matching funds required must generally be in an amount equal to the loan amount.
(ii) Matching funds must be from non-governmental member or nonmember share deposits.
(iii) Any loan monies matched by nonmember share deposits are not subject to the 20% limitation on nonmember deposits under § 701.32 of NCUA's regulations.
(iv) Participating Credit Unions must maintain the outstanding loan amount in the total amount of share deposits for the duration of the loan. Once the loan is repaid, nonmember share deposits accepted to meet the matching requirement are subject to § 701.32 of NCUA's regulations.
(b)
(c)
3.
(a)
(b)
A.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
(a)
(b)
5.
(a)
6.
(a)
(b)
C.
1.
2.
3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
4.
A.
B.
A.
1.
2.
A.
1.
A.
B.
12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757(5)(D), and (7)(I), 1766, 1782, 1784, 1785 and 1786; 12 CFR 705.
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Domestic Indemnity Panel. The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities for exhibitions beginning on or after April 1, 2013.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Old Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20506, in Room 730.
Lisette Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506, or call (202) 606-8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the National Endowment for the Humanities' TDD terminal at (202) 606-8282.
Because the meeting will consider proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, and material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and because it is important to keep the values of objects to be indemnified and the methods of transportation and security measures confidential, the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated July l9, l993.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by February 22, 2013. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Chad Whiteman, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-XXXX), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be emailed to
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, 301-415-6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nine Mile Point 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (UniStar), submitted a Combined License (COL) Application for a single unit of AREVA NP's U.S. EPR to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the
The regulations specified in 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), require that an applicant for a combined license under 10 CFR part 52 shall, during the period from docketing of a COL application until the Commission makes a finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) pertaining to facility operation, submit an annual update to the application's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which is a part of the application.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), the next annual update of the NMP3NPP COL application FSAR would be due in December 2012. By letter to the NRC dated November 27, 2012, UNE
UNE's requested exemption is a one-time schedule change from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow UNE to submit the next FSAR update by December 31, 2013. The current FSAR update schedule could not be changed, absent the exemption. UNE requested the exemption by letter dated November 27, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML12342A012). The NRC notes that the granting of the exemption applies prospectively, rather than retroactively, so this exemption applies to required actions from the date of exemption issuance and does not retroactively authorize a previous failure to take required action.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, including Section 50.71(e)(3)(iii) 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) special circumstances are present. As relevant to the requested exemption, special circumstances exist if: (1)“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” (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); or (2) “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” (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The review of the NMP3NPP COL application FSAR has been suspended since December 1, 2009. Since the COL application incorporates by reference the application for a Standard Design Certification for the U.S. EPR, many changes in the U.S. EPR FSAR require an associated change to the COL application FSAR, and because the NRC review of the COL application is suspended, the updates to the COL application FSAR will not be reviewed by the NRC staff until the NMP3NPP COL application review is resumed. Thus, the optimum time to prepare a revision to the COL application FSAR is sometime prior to UNE requesting the NRC to resume its review. Preparing and submitting a COL application FSAR update when the review remains suspended and in the absence of any decision by UNE to request the NRC to resume the review would require UNE to spend significant time and effort, and would be of no value, particularly due to the fact that the U.S. EPR FSAR is still undergoing periodic revisions and updates. UNE commits to submit the next FSAR update by December 31, 2013, and would need to identify all changes to the U.S. EPR FSAR in order to prepare a COL application FSAR revision that accurately and completely reflects the changes to the U.S. EPR FSAR.
The requested one-time schedule exemption to defer submittal of the next update to the NMP3NPP COL application FSAR would provide only temporary relief from the regulations of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). UNE has made good faith efforts to comply with 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) by submitting Revision 1 to the COL application on March 31, 2009, prior to requesting the review suspension. Revision 1 incorporated information provided in prior supplements and standardized language with the RCOL application.
The exemption is a one-time schedule exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow UNE to submit the next NMP3NPP COL application FSAR update on or before December 31, 2013. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions. The NRC staff has determined that granting UNE the requested one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) will provide only temporary relief from this regulation and will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. The requested exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to the schedule for submittal to the NRC of revisions to an application under 10 CFR Part 52, for which a license has not been granted. In addition, since the review of the application has been suspended, any update to the application submitted by UNE will not be reviewed by the NRC at this time. Based on the nature of the requested exemption as described above, no new accident precursors are created by the exemption; thus, neither the probability nor the consequences of postulated accidents are increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety.
The requested exemption would allow UNE to submit the next FSAR update on or before December 31, 2013. This schedule change 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), are present whenever: (1) “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” (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); or (2) “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” (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. As discussed above, the requested one-time exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to a one-time schedule change for submittal of revisions to an application under 10 CFR Part 52, for which a license has not been granted. The requested one-time exemption will permit UNE time to carefully review the most recent revisions of the U.S. EPR FSAR, and fully incorporate these revisions into a comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with the NMP3NPP COL application. This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the COL application when resumed, as well as issuance of the safety evaluation report. For this reason, application of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of that rule. Therefore, special circumstances exist under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). In
With respect to the exemption's impact on the quality of the human environment, the NRC has determined that this specific exemption request is eligible for categorical exclusion as identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), and justified by the NRC staff as follows:
The criteria for determining whether there is no significant hazards consideration are found in 10 CFR 50.92. The proposed action involves only a schedule change regarding the submission of an update to the application for which the licensing review has been suspended. Therefore, there is no significant hazards considerations because granting the proposed exemption would not:
(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed action involves only a schedule change which is administrative in nature, and does not involve any changes to be made in the types or significant increase in the amounts of effluents that may be released offsite.
Accordingly, the NRC 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 NRC hereby grants UNE a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) pertaining to the NMP3NPP COL application to allow submittal of the next FSAR update no later than December 31, 2013.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22, the NRC has determined that the exemption request meets the applicable categorical exclusion criteria set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), and the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from November 1, 2012, to November 31, 2012.
Senior Executive Resources Services, Executive Resources and Employee Development, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.
In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the
No schedule A authorities to report during November 2012.
No schedule B authorities to report during November 2012.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during November 2012.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during November 2012.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
This provides the consolidated notice of all agency specific excepted authorities, approved by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), under Schedule A, B, and C, as of June 30, 2012, as required by Civil Service Rule VI, Exceptions from the Competitive Service.
Senior Executive Resource Services, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.
Civil Service Rule VI (5 CFR 6.1) requires the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to publish notice of exceptions granted under Schedule A, B, and C. Under 5 CFR 213.103(a) it is required that all Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies to be published as regulations in the
OPM maintains continuing information on the status of all Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities. Interested parties needing information about specific authorities during the year may obtain information by writing to the Senior Executive Resource Services, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 7412, Washington, DC 20415, or by calling (202) 606-2246.
The following exceptions are current as of June 30, 2012.
(a) Office of Administration—
(1) Not to exceed 75 positions to provide administrative services and support to the White House Office.
(b) Office of Management and Budget—
(1) Not to exceed 20 positions at grades GS-5/15.
(c) Council on Environmental Quality—
(1) Professional and technical positions in grades GS-9 through 15 on the staff of the Council.
(d)-(f) (Reserved)
(g) National Security Council—
(1) All positions on the staff of the Council.
(h) Office of Science and Technology Policy—
(1) Thirty positions of Senior Policy Analyst, GS-15; Policy Analyst, GS-11/14; and Policy Research Assistant, GS-9, for employment of anyone not to exceed 5 years on projects of a high priority nature.
(i) Office of National Drug Control Policy—
(1) Not to exceed 18 positions, GS-15 and below, of senior policy analysts and other personnel with expertise in drug-related issues and/or technical knowledge to aid in anti-drug abuse efforts.
(a) Office of the Secretary—
(1) All positions, GS-15 and below, on the staff of the Family Liaison Office, Director General of the Foreign Service and the Director of Personnel, Office of the Under Secretary for Management.
(2) (Reserved)
(b)-(f) (Reserved)
(g) Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration—
(1) Not to exceed 10 positions at grades GS-5 through 11 on the staff of the Bureau.
(h) Bureau of Administration—
(1) (Reserved)
(2) One position of the Director, Art in Embassies Program, GM-1001-15.
(3) (Reserved)
(a) Office of the Secretary—
(1) Not to exceed 20 positions at the equivalent of GS-13 through GS-17 to supplement permanent staff in the study of complex problems relating to international financial, economic, trade, and energy policies and programs of the Government, when filled by individuals with special qualifications for the particular study being undertaken.
(2) Covering no more than 100 positions supplementing permanent staff studying domestic economic and financial policy, with employment not to exceed 4 years.
(3) Not to exceed 100 positions in the Office of the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.
(4) Up to 35 temporary or time-limited positions at the GS-9 through 15 grade levels to support the organization, design, and stand-up activities for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), as mandated by Public Law 111-203. This authority may be used for the following series: GS-201, GS-501, GS-560, GS-1035, GS-1102, GS-1150, GS-1720, GS-1801, and GS-2210. No new appointments may be made under this authority after July 21, 2011, the designated transfer date of the CFPB.
(b)-(d) (Reserved)
(e) Internal Revenue Service—
(1) Twenty positions of investigator for special assignments.
(f) (Reserved)
(g) (Reserved, moved to DOJ)
(h) Office of Financial Responsibility—
(1) Positions needed to perform investment, risk, financial, compliance, and asset management requiring unique qualifications currently not established by OPM. Positions will be in the Office of Financial Stability and the General Schedule (GS) grade levels 12-15 or Senior Level (SL), for initial employment not to exceed 4 years. No new appointments may be made under this authority after December 31, 2012.
(a) Office of the Secretary—
(1)-(5) (Reserved)
(6) One Executive Secretary, US-USSR Standing Consultative Commission and Staff Analyst (SALT),
(b) Entire Department (including the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force)—
(1) Dependent School Systems overseas—Professional positions in Military Dependent School systems overseas.
(2) Positions in Attaché 1 systems overseas, including all professional and scientific positions in the Naval Research Branch Office in London.
(3) Positions of clerk-translator, translator, and interpreter overseas.
(4) Positions of Educational Specialist the incumbents of which will serve as Director of Religious Education on the staffs of the chaplains in the military services.
(5) Positions under the program for utilization of alien scientists, approved under pertinent directives administered by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering of the Department of Defense, when occupied by alien scientists initially employed under the program including those who have acquired United States citizenship during such employment.
(6) Positions in overseas installations of the DOD when filled by dependents of military or civilian employees of the U.S. Government residing in the area. Employment under this authority may not extend longer than 2 months following the transfer from the area or separation of a dependent's sponsor: Provided that
(i) A school employee may be permitted to complete the school year; and
(ii) An employee other than a school employee may be permitted to serve up to 1 additional year when the military department concerned finds that the additional employment is in the interest of management.
(7) Twenty secretarial and staff support positions at GS-12 or below on the White House Support Group.
(8) Positions in DOD research and development activities occupied by participants in the DOD Science and Engineering Apprenticeship Program for High School Students. Persons employed under this authority shall be bona fide high school students, at least 14 years old, pursuing courses related to the position occupied and limited to 1,040 working hours a year. Children of DOD employees may be appointed to these positions, notwithstanding the sons and daughters restriction, if the positions are in field activities at remote locations. Appointments under this authority may be made only to positions for which qualification standards established under 5 CFR part 302 are consistent with the education and experience standards established for comparable positions in the competitive service. Appointments under this authority may not be used to extend the service limits contained in any other appointing authority.
(9) (Reserved)
(10) Temporary or time-limited positions in direct support of U.S. Government efforts to rebuild and create an independent, free and secure Iraq and Afghanistan, when no other appropriate appointing authority applies. Positions will generally be located in Iraq or Afghanistan, but may be in other locations, including the United States, when directly supporting operations in Iraq or in Afghanistan. No new appointments may be made under this authority after October 1, 2012.
(11) Not to exceed 3,000 positions that require unique cyber security skills and knowledge to perform cyber risk and strategic analysis, incident handling and malware/vulnerability analysis, program management, distributed control systems security, cyber incident response, cyber exercise facilitation and management, cyber vulnerability detection and assessment, network and systems engineering, enterprise architecture, intelligence analysis, investigation, investigative analysis, and cyber-related infrastructure inter-dependency analysis. This authority may be used to make permanent, time-limited and temporary appointments in the following occupational series: Security (GS-0080), Intelligence Analysts (GS-0132), Computer Engineers (GS-0854), Electronic Engineers (GS-0855), Computer Scientists (GS-1550), Operations Research (GS-1515), Criminal Investigators (GS-1811), Telecommunications (GS-0391), and IT Specialists (GS-2210). Within the scope of this authority, the U.S. Cyber Command is also authorized to hire miscellaneous administrative and program (GS-0301) series when those positions require unique qualifications not currently established by OPM. All positions will be at the General Schedule (GS) grade levels 09-15. No new appointments may be made under this authority after December 31, 2012.
(c) (Reserved)
(d) General—
(1) Positions concerned with advising, administering, supervising, or performing work in the collection, processing, analysis, production, evaluation, interpretation, dissemination, and estimation of intelligence information, including scientific and technical positions in the intelligence function; and positions involved in the planning, programming, and management of intelligence resources when, in the opinion of OPM, it is impracticable to examine. This authority does not apply to positions assigned to cryptologic and communications intelligence activities/functions.
(2) Positions involved in intelligence-related work of the cryptologic intelligence activities of the military departments. This includes all positions of intelligence research specialist, and similar positions in the intelligence classification series; all scientific and technical positions involving the applications of engineering, physical, or technical sciences to intelligence work; and professional as well as intelligence technician positions in which a majority of the incumbent's time is spent in advising, administering, supervising, or performing work in the collection, processing, analysis, production, evaluation, interpretation, dissemination, and estimation of intelligence information or in the planning, programming, and management of intelligence resources.
(e) Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences—
(1) Positions of President, Vice Presidents, Assistant Vice Presidents, Deans, Deputy Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, Assistants to the President, Assistants to the Vice Presidents, Assistants to the Deans, Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Instructors, Visiting Scientists, Research Associates, Senior Research Associates, and Postdoctoral Fellows.
(2) Positions established to perform work on projects funded from grants.
(f) National Defense University—
(1) Not to exceed 16 positions of senior policy analyst, GS-15, at the Strategic Concepts Development Center. Initial appointments to these positions may not exceed 6 years, but may be extended thereafter in 1-, 2-, or 3-year increments, indefinitely.
(g) Defense Communications Agency—
(1) Not to exceed 10 positions at grades GS-10/15 to staff and support the Crisis Management Center at the White House.
(h) Defense Acquisition University—
(1) The Provost and professors.
(i) George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch, Germany—
(1) The Director, Deputy Director, and positions of professor, instructor, and lecturer at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch, Germany, for initial
(j) Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, Honolulu, Hawaii—
(1) The Director, Deputy Director, Dean of Academics, Director of College, deputy department chairs, and senior positions of professor, associate professor, and research fellow within the Asia Pacific Center. Appointments may be made not to exceed 3 years and may be extended for periods not to exceed 3 years.
(k) Business Transformation Agency—
(1) Fifty temporary or time-limited (not to exceed four years) positions, at grades GS-11 through GS-15. The authority will be used to appoint persons in the following series: Management and Program Analysis, GS-343: Logistics Management, GS-346; Financial Management Programs, GS-501; Accounting, GS-510; Computer Engineering, GS-854; Business and Industry, GS-1101; Operations Research, GS-1515; Computer Science, GS-1550; General Supply, GS-2001; Supply Program Management, GS-2003; Inventory Management, GS-2010; and Information Technology, GS-2210.
(l) Special Inspector General for Afghanistan—
(1) Positions needed to establish the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. These positions provide for the independent and objective conduct and supervision of audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations funded with amounts appropriated and otherwise made available for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. These positions are established at General Schedule (GS) grade levels for initial employment not to exceed 3 years and may, with prior approval of OPM, be extended for an additional period of 2 years. No new appointments may be made under this authority after January 31, 2011.
(a)-(c) (Reserved)
(d) U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York—
(1) Civilian professors, instructors, teachers (except teachers at the Children's School), Cadet Social Activities Coordinator, Chapel Organist and Choir-Master, Director of Intercollegiate Athletics, Associate Director of Intercollegiate Athletics, Coaches, Facility Manager, Building Manager, three Physical Therapists (Athletic Trainers), Associate Director of Admissions for Plans and Programs, Deputy Director of Alumni Affairs; and Librarian when filled by an officer of the Regular Army retired from active service, and the Military Secretary to the Superintendent when filled by a U.S. Military Academy graduate retired as a regular commissioned officer for disability.
(e)-(f) (Reserved)
(g) Defense Language Institute—
(1) All positions (professors, instructors, lecturers) which require proficiency in a foreign language or knowledge of foreign language teaching methods.
(h) Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA—
(1) Positions of professor, instructor, or lecturer associated with courses of instruction of at least 10 months duration for employment not to exceed 5 years, which may be renewed in 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-year increments indefinitely thereafter.
(i) (Reserved)
(j) U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey—
(1) Positions of Academic Director, Department Head, and Instructor.
(k) U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas—
(1) Positions of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor associated with courses of instruction of at least 10 months duration, for employment not to exceed up to 5 years, which may be renewed in 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-year increments indefinitely thereafter.
(a) General—
(1)-(14) (Reserved)
(15) Marine positions assigned to a coastal or seagoing vessel operated by a naval activity for research or training purposes.
(16) All positions necessary for the administration and maintenance of the official residence of the Vice President.
(b) Naval Academy, Naval Postgraduate School, and Naval War College—
(1) Professors, Instructors, and Teachers; the Director of Academic Planning, Naval Postgraduate School; and the Librarian, Organist-Choirmaster, Registrar, the Dean of Admissions, and Social Counselors at the Naval Academy.
(c) Chief of Naval Operations—
(1) One position at grade GS-12 or above that will provide technical, managerial, or administrative support on highly classified functions to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Plans, Policy, and Operations).
(d) Military Sealift Command
(1) All positions on vessels operated by the Military Sealift Command.
(e)-(f) (Reserved)
(g) Office of Naval Research—
(1) Scientific and technical positions, GS-13/15, in the Office of Naval Research International Field Office which covers satellite offices within the Far East, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the South Pacific. Positions are to be filled by personnel having specialized experience in scientific and/or technical disciplines of current interest to the Department of the Navy.
(a) Office of the Secretary—
(1) One Special Assistant in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. This position has advisory rather than operating duties except as operating or administrative responsibilities may be exercised in connection with the pilot studies.
(b) General—
(1) Professional, technical, managerial and administrative positions supporting space activities, when approved by the Secretary of the Air Force.
(2) One hundred eighty positions, serviced by Hill Air Force Base, Utah, engaged in interdepartmental activities in support of national defense projects involving scientific and technical evaluations.
(c) Norton and McClellan Air Force Bases, California—
(1) Not to exceed 20 professional positions, GS-11 through GS-15, in Detachments 6 and 51, SM-ALC, Norton and McClellan Air Force Bases, California, which will provide logistic support management to specialized research and development projects.
(d) U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado—
(1) (Reserved)
(2) Positions of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, and Instructor, in the Dean of Faculty, Commandant of Cadets, Director of Athletics, and Preparatory School of the United States Air Force Academy.
(e) (Reserved)
(f) Air Force Office of Special Investigations—
(1) Positions of Criminal Investigators/Intelligence Research Specialists, GS-5 through GS-15, in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
(g) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio—
(1) Not to exceed eight positions, GS-12 through 15, in Headquarters Air Force Logistics Command, DCS Material Management, Office of Special
(h) Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama—
(1) Positions of Professor, Instructor, or Lecturer.
(i) Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio—
(1) Civilian deans and professors.
(j) Air Force Logistics Command—
(1) One Supervisory Logistics Management Specialist, GM-346-14, in Detachment 2, 2762 Logistics Management Squadron (Special), Greenville, Texas.
(k) Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio—
(1) One position of Supervisory Logistics Management Specialist, GS-346-15, in the 2762nd Logistics Squadron (Special), at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
(l) Air National Guard Readiness Center—
(1) One position of Commander, Air National Guard Readiness Center, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland.
(a) General—
(1) Deputy U.S. Marshals employed on an hourly basis for intermittent service.
(2) Positions at GS-15 and below on the staff of an office of a special counsel.
(3)-(5) (Reserved)
(6) Positions of Program Manager and Assistant Program Manager supporting the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program in foreign countries. Initial appointments under this authority may not exceed 2 years, but may be extended in 1-year increments for the duration of the in-country program.
(7) Positions necessary throughout DOJ, for the excepted service transfer of NDIC employees hired under Schedule A, 213.3110(d). Authority expires September 30, 2012.
(b) (Reserved, moved to DHS)
(c) Drug Enforcement Administration—
(1) (Reserved)
(2) Four hundred positions of Intelligence Research Agent and/or Intelligence Operation Specialist in the GS-132 series, grades GS-9 through GS-15.
(3) Not to exceed 200 positions of Criminal Investigator (Special Agent). New appointments may be made under this authority only at grades GS-7/11.
(d) (Reserved, moved to Justice)
(e) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms—
(1) One hundred positions of Criminal Investigator for special assignments.
(2) One non-permanent Senior Level (SL) Criminal Investigator to serve as a senior advisor to the Assistant Director (Firearms, Explosives, and Arson).
(a) (Revoked 11/19/2009)
(b) Law Enforcement Policy—
(1) Ten positions for oversight policy and direction of sensitive law enforcement activities.
(c) Homeland Security Labor Relations Board/Homeland Security Mandatory Removal Board—
(1) Up to 15 Senior Level and General Schedule (or equivalent) positions.
(d) General—
(1) Not to exceed 1,000 positions to perform cyber risk and strategic analysis, incident handling and malware/vulnerability analysis, program management, distributed control systems security, cyber incident response, cyber exercise facilitation and management, cyber vulnerability detection and assessment, network and systems engineering, enterprise architecture, intelligence analysis, investigation, investigative analysis and cyber-related infrastructure interdependency analysis requiring unique qualifications currently not established by OPM. Positions will be at the General Schedule (GS) grade levels 09-15. No new appointments may be made under this authority after December 31, 2012.
(e) Papago Indian Agency—Not to exceed 25 positions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Ta