Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Engineers Corps
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Economic Analysis Bureau
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Management and Budget Office
Presidential Documents
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Institute of Corrections
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Management and Budget Office
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Transportation Security Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature, specifically sidestick controllers designed to be operated with only one hand. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Todd Martin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1178; facsimile 425-227-1232.
On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with pressurized cabins, and they share an identical supplier base and significant common design elements. The fuselages are aluminum alloy material, blended double-bubble fuselages, sized for nominal five-abreast seating. Each airplane's powerplant includes two under-wing Pratt and Whitney PW1524G ultra-high bypass, geared turbofan engines. The flight controls are fly-by-wire flight with two passive/uncoupled sidesticks. Avionics include five landscape primary cockpit displays. The dimension of the aircraft encompasses a wingspan of 115 feet; height of 37.75 feet; and length of 114.75 feet for the Model BD-500-1A10 and length of 127 feet for the Model BD-500-1A11. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff thrust is 21,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 23,300 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11. The range is 5,463 kilometres for both model airplanes. The maximum operating altitude is 41,000 feet for both model airplanes.
Bombardier Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes will be equipped with a sidestick controller instead of a conventional control column and wheel. This kind of controller is designed for only one-hand operation.
The requirement of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.397(c), which defines limit pilot forces and torques for conventional wheel or stick controls, is not adequate for a sidestick controller. A special condition is necessary to specify the appropriate loading conditions for this kind of controller.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: A sidestick controller instead of a conventional control column and wheel. This kind of controller is designed for one-hand operation.
The Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes are equipped with a sidestick controller instead of a conventional wheel or control stick. This kind of controller is designed to be operated using only one hand. The requirement of 14 CFR 25.397(c), which defines limit pilot forces and torques for conventional wheel or stick controls, is not adequate for a sidestick controller, because pilot forces are applied to sidestick controllers with only the wrist, not arms. A special condition is necessary to specify the appropriate loading conditions for a sidestick controller. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to
Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-12-14-SC for the Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes was published in the
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. Should Bombardier Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes by Bombardier Aerospace:
In lieu of the pilot forces specified in § 25.397(c), for the Bombardier Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes equipped with sidestick controls designed for forces to be applied by one wrist and not arms, the limit pilot forces are as follows:
1. For all components between and including the handle and its control stops.
2. For all other components of the sidestick control assembly, excluding the internal components of the electrical sensor assemblies, to avoid damage as a result of an in-flight jam.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; technical correction.
The FAA is correcting the effective date of a final rule correction for flightcrew member duty and rest requirements published on February 6, 2013, that required technical corrections in the codified text of the final flightcrew member duty and rest rule. The correct effective date of the rule should read January 4, 2014.
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Dale E. Roberts, AFS-200, Flight Standards Service, Air Transportation Division Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-5749; email
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert Frenzel, AGC-220, Office of Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email:
On January 4, 2012, the FAA published a final rule entitled “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements” (77 FR 330). In that rule, the FAA created a new part, part 117, which replaced the then-existing flight, duty, and rest regulations for part 121 passenger operations. As part of this rulemaking, the FAA also applied the new part 117 to certain part 91 operations, and it permitted all-cargo operations operating under part 121 to voluntarily opt into the part 117 flight, duty, and rest regulations.
Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered several issues requiring a technical correction in the regulatory text of the rule and published a final rule, technical correction on February 6, 2013 (78 FR 8361). The FAA realized that the effective date in this rule was inadvertently changed from January 4, 2014, to January 14, 2014.
This technical correction changes the effective date to January 4, 2014.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) publishes this action to make final a rule to extend the Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis (SIMA) system until March 21, 2017. The purpose of the SIMA system is to provide the public statistical data on steel imports entering the United States seven weeks earlier than it would otherwise be available to the public. Aggregate data collected from the licenses are made available to the public on a weekly basis following review by the Department.
This final rule is effective March 21, 2013.
For information about the SIMA system, please contact Steven Presing (202) 482-1672 or Julie Al-Saadawi (202) 482-1930.
The SIMA system has operated under its current authority since March 21, 2005. Prior to that date, authority for steel import licensing and monitoring was derived from Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002 (67 FR 10553). Pursuant to sections 201 and 203 of the 1974 Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. 2251, 2253, Proclamation 7529 implemented safeguard measures with respect to certain imported steel products, placing temporary tariffs on these steel imports and providing the steel industry time to restructure. The monitoring system outlined in Proclamation 7529 required all importers of steel products to obtain a license from the Department prior to completing their customs entry summary documentation. This provided a monitoring tool to ensure that the effectiveness of the steel safeguard measures was not undermined by large quantities of imports originating from countries that were excluded from the tariffs. In Proclamation 7741 of December 4, 2003 (68 FR 68483), the President terminated the steel safeguard measures, but directed the Secretary of Commerce to continue the monitoring system until the earlier of March 21, 2005, or such time as the Secretary of Commerce established a replacement program. On December 9, 2003, the Department published a notice stating that the system would continue in effect as described in Proclamation 7741 until March 21, 2005 (68 FR 68594). On August 25, 2004, the Department published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting comments from the public on whether to continue the monitoring system beyond March 21, 2005 (69 FR 52211). Formerly known as the Steel Import Licensing and Surge Monitoring program, the Department changed the program's name to the Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis (SIMA) system upon publication of the August 2004 advance notice. On March 11, 2005, the Department published an interim final rule responding to the comments received from the public and implementing a slightly expanded version of SIMA until March 21, 2009. That interim final rule was followed by the publication of the final rule on December 5, 2005 (70 FR 72373). On December 12, 2008, a proposed rule was published in the
The purpose of the SIMA system is to provide steel producers, steel consumers, importers, and the general public with accurate and timely information on anticipated imports of certain steel products. Import licenses, obtained through the Internet-based SIMA licensing system, are required for U.S. imports of basic steel mill products. Aggregate import data obtained from the licenses are updated weekly and posted on the SIMA Web site monitor. Details of the current system can be found at
Submissions received during the public comment period established in the proposed rule have been considered in preparing this final rule. Three submissions were received from a coalition of eight steel trade groups (referred to as the “industry”), a downstream steel products trade group and one of the largest steel producing companies in the United States. All of the submissions supported the four-year extension and agreed that the system is a critical tool that helps the industry to closely monitor steel imports. The comments are summarized below. The three submissions received are posted on the Federal rulemaking portal at www.Regulations.gov as well as on the SIMA Web site at
For the reasons discussed above, the proposed rule (19 CFR part 360) is made final without changes.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration at the proposed rule stage, that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as that term is defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The factual basis for the certification is found in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received on the certification or the economic impacts of this action. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none was prepared.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements have been approved by OMB (OMB No. 0625-0245; Expiration Date: 12/31/2014). Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be less than ten minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are voluntary, and will be provided confidentially to the extent allowed by law.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Steel.
For reasons discussed in the preamble, 19 CFR part 360 is amended to read as follows:
13 U.S.C. 301(a) and 302.
The licensing program will be in effect through March 21, 2017, but may be extended upon review and notification in the
In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1926, revised as of July 1, 2012, on page 225, in § 1926.152, paragraph (c)(16) is added to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(16) Wire rope slings shall have permanently affixed, legible identification markings stating size, rated capacity for the type(s) of hitch(es) used and the angle upon which it is based, and the number of legs if more than one.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in March 2013. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective March 1, 2013.
Catherine B. Klion (
PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR Part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (
PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for March 2013.
The March 2013 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.00 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for February 2013, these interest assumptions represent an increase of 0.25 percent in the immediate annuity rate and are otherwise unchanged.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during March 2013, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the draw of the James River Draw Bridge across the James River, mile 5.0, between Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA. This deviation is necessary to facilitate generator replacement on the James River Draw Bridge. This temporary deviation will allow the drawbridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position on specific dates and times.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on February 16, 2013, until 5 a.m. on February 18, 2013; from 12:01 a.m. on February 23, 2013, until 5 a.m. on February 25, 2013; and from 12:01 a.m. on March 2, 2013, until 5 a.m. on March 4, 2013.
The docket for this notice, USCG-2013-0066, is available online at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6557, email
The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates this vertical lift bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.5, to facilitate generator replacement on the structure.
Under the regular operating schedule, the James River Bridge, mile 5.0, between Isle of Isle and Newport News, VA opens on signal. The James River Bridge has vertical clearances in the open and closed position of 145 feet and 60 feet, above mean high water, respectively.
Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be closed on weekends to navigation from 12:01 a.m. on February 16, 2013, until 5 a.m. on February 18, 2013; from 12:01 a.m. on February 23, 2013, until 5 a.m. on February 25, 2013; and from 12:01 a.m. on March 2, 2013 until 5 a.m. on March 4, 2013. If weather conditions are favorable during the first two weekends of the deviation, mariners will be notified via a broadcast notice to mariners and local media that the bridge will return to its regular operating schedule and that the third week of closure is no longer necessary.
Only emergency openings will be provided with up to a two-hour delay in opening. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the James River.
The James River is used by a variety of vessels including freighters, tugs, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users. The Coast Guard will inform all users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation. Mariners able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. Mariners are advised to proceed with caution.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Worth Inlet, West Palm Beach, Florida, to provide for the safety of life and vessels during dredge operations. A safety zone will need to be enforced for 90 minutes on two separate occasions during a two week period. The time of enforcement will be publicized as soon as practical. During the time of enforcement, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from February 15, 2013, through February 20, 2013, but has been enforced with actual notice since February 4, 2013. This rule will be enforced for two 90 minute periods which will occur during the period of February 4, 2013, through February 20, 2013. The public will be
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2013-0036. 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 Lieutenant Junior Grade Mike H. Wu, Sector Miami Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (305) 535-7576, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive all information regarding the dredging operation until January 30, 2013. As a result, it was not until that time that the Coast Guard had sufficient information regarding the necessity to move dredging equipment during ongoing dredging operations, and therefore there was insufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the operations. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because this rule is needed to provide for the safety of life on a navigable waterway of the United States.
For the same reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life and vessels on a navigable waterway of the United States during dredging operations.
For two 90 minute periods, between Monday, February 4, 2013, and Wednesday, February 20, 2013, dredging operations will be conducted on Lake Worth Inlet in West Palm Beach, Florida. These operations will impede the safe navigation of vessel traffic on the waterway.
The temporary safety zone encompasses all waters of Lake Worth Inlet from the end of the jetties at the eastern entrance to the southwestern corner of Singer Island and then due south across the inlet to Palm Beach Island. This safety zone will be enforced for two 90 minute periods between February 4 and February 20, 2013, during dredge operations.
Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
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. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for a maximum of 90 minutes on two separate days; (2) persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative; (3) persons and vessels not authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or designated representative to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene representatives.
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 may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone established by this
For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 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 the creation of a temporary safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard will be establishing a temporary safety zone around the southern portion of Anchorage #2 (Artificial Island Anchorage) below position 39°29′20″ N-075°33′30″ W to position 39°29′12.5″ N-075°33′0″ W due to dredging operations. The hopper dredge STUYVESANT will be working in the area, and 4,000 feet of submerged pipe line will cross the closed portion of the anchorage. This regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Artificial Island Anchorage. This closure is intended to restrict vessel anchoring to protect mariners from the hazards associated with an ongoing dredging operation.
This rule is effective on February 15, 2013 until June 15, 2013, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port. This rule has been enforced with actual notice from February 1, 2013, until February 15, 2013.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2013-0032. 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 Lieutenant Veronica Smith, Waterways Management Branch, Sector Delaware Bay, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-4851, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because final details for this dredging operation were not provided until January 24, 2013. As such, it is impracticable to provide a full comment period due to lack of time. The dredging operation will begin on February 1, 2013 and will continue until June 15, 2013 unless completed earlier.
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
Dutra Dredging Company has been contracted by the Army Corps of Engineers on the Delaware River channel deepening project. A portion of this project requires the use of submerged and floating pipelines crossing the lower portion of the Artificial Island Anchorage (No. 2). Due to the presence of the submerged pipeline, vessels are not permitted to anchor in the southern portion of the anchorage. This regulation is necessary because there will be an ongoing dredging operation to deepen the Delaware River channel in the Reedy Island Range from February 1, 2013, until June 15, 2013. The Captain of the Port will reopen this portion of the anchorage once all submerged pipeline has been recovered and dredging operations are completed. At such time, notice that the temporary closure of the anchorage is no longer in effect will be broadcast to mariners. The Captain of the Port is establishing this safety zone to ensure the safety of life and property of all mariners and vessels transiting the local area.
The Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay is temporarily establishing a safety zone closing the southern portion of Artificial Island Anchorage from February 1, 2013, until June 15, 2013, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port. The boundary line for the temporary safety zone includes the southern portion of Artificial Island Anchorage, below position 39°29′20″ N -075°33′30″ W to position 39°29′12.5″ N -075°33′0″ W and extending to the southern boundary according to NOAA chart 12311. Vessels will not be permitted to anchor in this portion of Artificial Island Anchorage.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking.
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. Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The Coast Guard will make extensive notification of the closure to the maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly, and (ii) this rule will be enforced for only the duration of dredging operations.
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. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of the vessels intending to anchor in the southern portion of Artificial Island Anchorage from February 1, 2013, until June 15, 2013, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.
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. Vessels will be allowed utilize the upper portion of Artificial Island Anchorage and nearby anchorages with permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her representative. Sector Delaware Bay will issue maritime advisories widely accessible to users of the Anchorage informing them of the safety zone.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways. This zone will temporarily restrict vessels from
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, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(c)
(1) All persons and vessels utilizing the southern portion of the anchorage must be authorized by the Captain of the Port or her representative.
(2) This section applies to all vessels wishing to anchor in the safety zone within Artificial Island Anchorage except vessels that are engaged in the following operations:
(i) Enforcing laws;
(ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and
(iii) Emergency response vessels.
(3) No person may bring or cause to be brought into the safety zone any vehicle, vessel, or object unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
(4) No person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port.
(5) Each person and vessel in the safety zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard will be extending a temporary safety zone around the southern one-third of Anchorage #9 (Mantua Creek Anchorage), below position 39° 51.573 N-075° 13.557 W due to dredging operations. The Dredge Florida will be working along with several support barges and tugs to install approximately 8,000 feet of submerged pipeline and approximately 3,000 feet of floating pipeline crossing through this portion of the anchorage. This regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Mantua Creek Anchorage. This closure is intended to restrict vessel anchoring to protect mariners from the hazards associated with an ongoing dredging operation.
This rule is effective on February 15, 2013 until March 1, 2013, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port. This rule has been enforced with actual notice from February 1, 2013, until February 15, 2013.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2012-1092. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Veronica Smith, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Acting Chief of Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone 215-271-4851, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because final details for this dredging operation were not provided until January 24, 2013. Initially, the Coast Guard was advised by Dredge Florida that the operations would be complete on January 31, 2013, which is reflected in the rule published in 78 FR 3326. However, on January 24, 2013, the Coast Guard was notified by Dredge Florida that mechanical failures would delay the completion of the dredging operations until on or around March 1, 2013. As such, it is impracticable to provide a full comment period due to lack of time. Further, immediate action is necessary to protect the maritime public and facilitate the dredging operation, and therefore a delay in continuing this safety zone would be impracticable. The dredging began on December 20th, 2012, and will continue until March 1, 2013 unless completed earlier.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Great Lakes Dredging Company has been working with the Army Corps of Engineers on the Delaware River channel deepening project. A portion of this project requires the use of submerged and floating pipelines crossing the lower portion of the Mantua Creek Anchorage. Due to the presence of the submerged pipeline, vessels are not permitted to anchor in the southern one-third of the anchorage. This regulation is necessary because there will be an ongoing dredging operation to deepen the Delaware River channel in the Mifflin and Billingsport Ranges from December 20, 2012 until March 1, 2013. The Captain of the Port will reopen this portion of the anchorage once all submerged pipeline has been recovered and dredging operations are completed. At such time, notice that the temporary closure of the anchorage is no longer in effect will be broadcast to mariners. The Captain of the Port is establishing this safety zone to ensure the safety of life and property of all mariners and vessels transiting the local area.
The Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay is temporarily continuing a safety zone closing the southern one-third of the Mantua Creek Anchorage from February 1, 2013, until March 1, 2013, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port. The boundary line for the temporary safety zone includes the southern one-third portion of Mantua Creek Anchorage, beginning at position 39° 51.573 N-075° 13.557 W and extending to the southern boundary according to NOAA chart 12312. Vessels will not be permitted to anchor in this portion of Mantua Creek Anchorage unless they receive authorization from the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her representative. Such requests must be made 24 hours prior to the intended use of the Mantua Creek Anchorage. Vessels may contact the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her representative in order to obtain authorization by contacting Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay at: (215) 271-4940. After evaluating the current conditions and status of dredging operation, the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her representative will notify the requesting vessel whether they are authorized to anchor in the safety zone within Mantua Creek Anchorage, and will provide any other directions for their request.
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. Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The Coast Guard will make extensive notification of the closure to the maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly; (ii) vessels may still be permitted to anchor in the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port on a case-by-case basis; and (iii) this rule will be enforced for only the duration of dredging operations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of the vessels intending to anchor in the safety zone within Mantua Creek Anchorage from February 1, 2013, until March 1, 2013, or unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.
This closure will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessels will be allowed utilize the upper two-thirds of the Mantua Creek Anchorage, and nearby anchorages with permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her representative. Sector Delaware Bay will issue maritime advisories widely accessible to users of the Anchorage informing them of the safety zone.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways. This zone will temporarily restrict vessels from utilizing the southern one-third of Mantua Creek Anchorage in order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters while dredging operations are conducted. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
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, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The EPA is taking direct final action to revise the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for purposes of preparing state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone under title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This direct final action adds
This rule is effective May 16, 2013 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by April 1, 2013. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0393, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
David Sanders, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-3356; fax number: 919-541-0824; email address:
The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. This action revises the EPA's definition of VOCs for purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the NAAQS for ozone under title I of the CAA. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Entities potentially affected by this direct final rule include, but are not necessarily limited to, state and local air pollution control agencies that adopt and implement regulations to control air emissions of VOCs; industries involved in the manufacture or use of refrigerants, aerosol and non-aerosol solvents, and blowing agents for insulating foams; and manufacturers of refrigeration equipment, hot water heaters and waste heat recovery equipment.
Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, the EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be released into the atmosphere. VOCs are those organic compounds of carbon that form ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Different VOCs have different levels of reactivity. That is, they do not react to form ozone at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent. Some VOCs react slowly or form less ozone; therefore, changes in their emissions have less and, in some cases, very limited effects on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has been the EPA's policy that organic compounds with a negligible level of reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory VOC definition so as to focus VOC control efforts on compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. The EPA also believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. The EPA lists compounds that it has determined to be negligibly reactive in its regulations as being excluded from the definition of VOC. (40 CFR 51.100(s)).
The CAA requires the regulation of VOCs for various purposes. Section
The EPA has used three different metrics to compare the reactivity of a specific compound to that of ethane: (i) The reaction rate constant (known as k
The k
The MIR, both by mole and by mass, is a more recently developed metric of photochemical reactivity derived from a computer-based photochemical model. This metric considers the complete ozone forming activity of a compound on a single day, and not merely the first reaction step.
The MIR values for compounds are typically expressed as grams of ozone formed per gram of VOC (mass basis), but may also be expressed as grams of ozone formed per mole of VOC (molar basis). For comparing the reactivities of two compounds, use of the molar-based MIR values compares an equal number of molecules of the two compounds. Alternatively, use of the mass-based MIR values compares an equal mass of the two compounds, which involves a different numbers of molecules, depending on the relative molecular weights. The molar-based MIR comparison is consistent with the original smog chamber experiments that underlie the original selection of ethane as the threshold compound, in that these experiments compared equal molar concentrations of individual VOCs. It is also consistent with previous reactivity determinations based on k
The choice of the molar basis versus the mass basis for the ethane comparison can be significant. In some cases, a compound might be considered less reactive than ethane under the mass basis but not under the molar basis. For compounds with molecular weights higher than that of ethane, use of the mass basis results in more VOCs being classified as less reactive than ethane than does use of the molar basis.
The EPA has considered the choice between a molar or mass basis for the comparison to ethane in past rulemakings and guidance. In the Interim Guidance, the EPA stated:
[A] comparison to ethane on a mass basis strikes the right balance between a threshold that is low enough to capture compounds that significantly affect ozone concentrations and a threshold that is high enough to exempt some compounds that may usefully substitute for more highly reactive compounds.
When reviewing compounds that have been suggested for VOC-exempt status, EPA will continue to compare them to ethane using k
The EPA's 2005 Interim Guidance also noted that concerns have sometimes been raised about the potential impact of a VOC exemption on environmental endpoints other than ozone concentrations, including fine particle formation, air toxics exposures, stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change. The EPA has recognized, however, that there are existing regulatory and non-regulatory programs that are specifically designed to address these issues, and the EPA continues to believe that the impacts of VOC exemptions on environmental endpoints other than ozone formation will be adequately addressed by these programs. The VOC exemption policy is intended to facilitate attainment of the ozone NAAQS, and questions have been raised as to whether the agency has authority to use its VOC exemption policy to address concerns that are unrelated to ground-level ozone. In general, VOC exemption decisions will continue to be based solely on consideration of a compound's contribution to ozone formation. However, if the EPA determines that a particular VOC exemption is likely to result in a significant increase in the use of a compound and that the increased use would pose a significant risk to human health or the environment that would not be addressed adequately by existing programs or policies, the EPA reserves the right to exercise its judgment in deciding whether to grant an exemption.
Honeywell, Inc. submitted a petition to the EPA on July 19, 2011, requesting that
To support its petition, Honeywell submitted several documents, including a technical report on the maximum incremental reactivity of Solstice
The Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires the EPA to assess and prevent any unreasonable risks to human health and the environment before a new chemical substance is introduced into commerce. Section 5 of TSCA requires manufacturers and importers to notify the EPA before manufacturing or importing a new chemical substance. Under the Premanufacture Notification (PMN) Review Process, the EPA then performs a risk assessment on the new chemical substance to determine if an unreasonable risk may, or will, be presented by the expected use of the new substance. Finally, the EPA makes risk management decisions and takes action to control any unreasonable risks posed by new chemical substances. Under TSCA, the EPA is allowed 90 days to review each substance, extendable to 180 days under certain conditions.
As a new chemical not yet introduced into commerce, Solstice
The SNAP program is the EPA's program to evaluate and regulate substitutes for the ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) that are being phased out under the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the CAA. In section 612(c) of the CAA, the agency is authorized to identify and publish lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for class I or class II ozone-depleting substances.
The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the petition for exemption of Solstice
The reaction rate of ethane with OH is 2.4 × 10
The overall atmospheric reactivity of Solstice
Table 1 presents the three reactivity metrics for Solstice
From the data in Table 1, it can be seen that Solstice
According to the petitioner, in the foam blowing applications, Solstice
As stated in section IV.C, Solstice
In summary, the EPA believes that Solstice
The SNAP program review of Solstice
Solstice
Sulbaek Andersen et al., 2008, states that Solstice
Solstice
In summary, the EPA finds that Solstice
The EPA is responding to the petition by revising its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to add Solstice
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this notice on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards. (
After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 USC 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This direct final rule removes Solstice
This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This direct final rule removes Solstice
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This direct final rule removes Solstice
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in section IV.B. of this preamble and within the docket for this rulemaking. While this direct final rule is not subject to the Executive Order, the EPA has reason to believe that ozone has a disproportionate effect on active children who play outdoors (62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997). The EPA has not identified any specific studies on whether or to what extent Solstice
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date the final action is published in the
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479, 7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission eliminates the International Settlements Policy (ISP) and applies a modified version to Cuba. The Commission amends its rules and procedures to enhance its ability to respond to foreign carriers' anticompetitive behavior in and timely and effective manner. Eliminating the ISP will enable more market-based arrangements between U.S. and foreign carriers on all U.S.-international routes giving U.S. consumers competitive pricing when they make international calls. The Commission also adopts certain limited measures to improve the Commission's ability to protect U.S. consumers from the effects of anticompetitive conduct by foreign carriers.
Effective March 18, 2013, except for the amendment to § 43.51(d) which contains information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Commission will seek comments from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), other Federal agencies and the general public on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein in a separate notice to be published in
James Ball or Kimberly Cook, Policy Division, International Bureau, 202-418-1460. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in IB Docket No. 11-80, RM-11322, IB Docket No. 05-254, IB Docket No. 09-10, FCC 12-145, which was adopted on November 29, 2012. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
1. The Commission finds that the record supports removing the International Settlements Policy (ISP) from the 38 international routes to which it continues to apply, with the exception of Cuba. The market has seen significant competitive growth since the Commission last reviewed the ISP. Further, in today's competitive market, maintaining the ISP has the opposite effect for which it was intended because it now hurts U.S. carriers' ability to negotiate competitive rates with their foreign correspondents. Foreign carriers on ISP routes no longer have the incentive to agree to pay symmetrical rates to U.S. carriers for their U.S.-bound traffic, as required by the ISP, because they can send that traffic to the United States at significantly lower market rates through traffic re-origination arrangements offered by third country foreign carriers on ISP-exempt routes between the United States and those third countries. The Commission believes that removing the ISP from the remaining U.S.-international routes will provide U.S. carriers greater flexibility to negotiate lower settlement rates on those routes. Thus, it removes the ISP from the remaining international routes with the exception of Cuba, to which we continue to apply a limited form of the ISP as well as the benchmarks policy subject to waivers.
2. The Commission believes it is appropriate to continue to apply only part of the ISP to the U.S.-Cuba route. The Commission finds that continuing to apply the proportionate return and symmetric rate prongs of the ISP to the U.S.-Cuba route would likely complicate the resumption of direct telecommunications services on the route because Cuban carriers are able to continue indirect routing of U.S. traffic. Accordingly, the Commission will remove these requirements from this route. The Commission, believes, however, that the nondiscrimination prong of the ISP is essential to assuring that one U.S. carrier is not favored over another once direct service on the U.S.-Cuba route resumes. Therefore, consistent with the guidance from the U.S. Department of State, the Commission will continue to apply the nondiscrimination prong of the ISP to the U.S.-Cuba route. The Commission will also continue to apply its benchmarks policy to direct U.S.-Cuba traffic subject to waiver.
3. Because the Commission will continue to apply the nondiscrimination prong to U.S.-Cuba traffic, it will provide in its rules that the terms and conditions of any operating or other agreement relating to the exchange of services, interchange or routing of traffic and matters concerning rates, accounting rates, division of tolls, the allocation of return traffic, or the basis of settlement of traffic balances, entered into by U.S. common carriers authorized pursuant to Part 63 of the Commission's rules to provide facilities-based switched voice service on the U.S.-Cuba route in correspondence with a Cuban carrier that does not qualify for the presumption that it lacks market power in Cuba, shall be identical to the equivalent terms and conditions in the operating agreement of another carrier providing the same or similar service between the United States and Cuba. No operating or other agreement inconsistent with this requirement may become effective unless and until the U.S. carrier obtains a waiver from the Commission. This condition would also be imposed on all section 214 authorizations for direct service to Cuba.
4. Carriers that seek waiver of the nondiscrimination requirement on the U.S.-Cuba route must submit a request to the Commission with a persuasive showing as to the public interest benefits of permitting it to enter into an agreement with a Cuban carrier with market power that contains accounting rates and related arrangements not offered by that Cuban carrier to all other U.S. carriers. Any such request for waiver shall include identification of the Cuban carrier party to the proposed agreement; a copy of the proposed agreement; the present accounting rate (if any); the new accounting rate (including any surcharges); the proposed effective date of the new agreement; a notarized statement by the carrier requesting the waiver that it has informed the Cuban administration that U.S. policy requires that competing U.S. carriers have access to accounting rates negotiated by the filing carrier with a Cuban carrier with market power on a nondiscriminating basis; and a statement as to the public interest
5. Because the Commission has removed the ISP from all U.S.-international routes except for the U.S.-Cuba route as described above, it eliminates 47 CFR 64.1001 and 64.1002 (a)-(c) and (e). The Commission adds a provision in 47 CFR 63.22 to implement its continuing policy goal of preventing discriminatory treatment of U.S. carriers on the Cuba route. The Commission also requires any agreement reached on the U.S.-Cuba route to be consistent with this condition and filed with the Commission. The Commission will consider such an agreement routinely available for public inspection. The Commission amends and retains the requirements of 47 CFR 64.1002(d), relocating it to part 63. This section sets forth procedures for Commission consideration of allegations of anticompetitive conduct on international routes.
6. The Commission will require all U.S. carriers to provide information about any above-benchmark settlement rates on an as-needed basis in connection with an investigation of competition problems on selected routes or review of high consumer rates on either multiple or selected routes. The Commission will require U.S. carriers to provide information on request and give confidential treatment to the information pursuant to its rules. On an as-needed basis, the Commission may require U.S. carriers to file all agreements, amendments and rates with the Commission. The Commission might exercise that authority on our own motion or where the Commission receives a complaint from a carrier or from a consumer with respect to a specific international route. The Commission finds that this approach appropriately balances the Commission's need to have notice of above-benchmark rates to prevent and protect against potential anticompetitive behavior while minimizing the burden on U.S. carriers. Finally, the Commission continues to reserve the right to require the filing of particular contracts when presented with evidence of a violation of the “No Special Concessions” rule or of other anticompetitive behavior related to these matters on a particular route.
7. The Commission also adopts certain limited measures to improve the Commission's ability to protect U.S. consumers from the effects of anticompetitive conduct by foreign carriers. The Commission adopts the presumption that partial circuit blockages and threats of circuit blockages, like circuit blockages, constitute anticompetitive behavior. The Commission also adopts additional potential remedies to respond to anticompetitive action following consultation with other U.S. government agencies as appropriate. The Commission determines that the prohibition of increased payments should be remedy used as one of several potential enforcement tools that may be applied based on the facts of each situation. The Commission declines to implement increasing U.S.-inbound rates as a potential remedy and also declines to implement re-imposing the ISP as a potential remedy. The Commission maintains its authority to revoke or place limitations on section 214 authorizations in instances where the carrier or its foreign affiliate is engaging in anticompetitive behavior. The Commission includes the prohibition to carry or terminate traffic as a potential remedy to be used as appropriate in circumstances where it could prevent or minimize anticompetitive behavior on a U.S.-international route. It also maintained full stop payment orders are an appropriate remedy.
8. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analyses. This document contains modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public, other Federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 in a separate notice that will be published in the
9. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
10. In recent years there has been increased participation and competition in the U.S. international marketplace, decreased settlement and end-user rates, and growing liberalization and privatization in foreign markets. Because of this increase, the Commission believes that it is an appropriate time to adopt changes to its International Settlements Policy (ISP) and accounting rate policies.
11. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of entities that will be affected by the rules.
12. This Order may directly affect up to approximately 31 facilities-based U.S. international carriers providing IMTS
13. The Order largely reduces projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. These changes affect small and large companies equally. In developing the Commission's ISP, benchmarks and international settlement rates policies, the Commission implemented various reporting requirements to monitor possible anticompetitive behavior and protect the public interest. The Order reserves the right to require the filing of particular contracts when presented with evidence of a violation of the “No Special Concessions” rule or of other anticompetitive behavior related to these matters on a particular route.
14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
15. The changes adopted in this Order are designed to provide the Commission with information to determine whether its existing regulatory regime may inhibit the benefits of lower calling process and greater service innovations to consumers. Because the Order is broad and changes would likely affect only 31 facilities-based carriers, it would be difficult to adopt specific alternatives for the small facilities-based entities. The changes adopted in the Order would benefit all entities, including small entities.
16. The Order does take action that would minimize the economic impact on all entities, including small entities. For example, the Order removes the ISP from certain remaining routes. This action eliminates the burden of seeking prior Commission approval before a carrier could enter into arrangements with foreign carriers. Any changes to our existing policies and rules will expand the ability of all entities, including small entities, to reap the economic benefits of competition. Thus, the Order does not include any exemption for small entities.
17. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA.
The Commission will send a copy of this Report & Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
18.
19.
20.
Freedom of information, Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 43, 63 and 64 as follows:
Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) The rates, terms and conditions in any agreement between a U.S. carrier and a foreign carrier that govern the settlement of U.S.-international traffic, including the method for allocating return traffic, except as otherwise specified by the Commission by order or by the International Bureau under delegated authority.
15 U.S.C. 79
(a) * * *
(12) [Reserved]
47 U.S.C. 154; Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, secs. 402(b)(2)(B), (c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) as amended unless otherwise noted, 47 U.S.C. 211, 219, 220 as amended.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)(1) Any communication common carrier described in paragraph (b) of this section must file with the Commission, within thirty (30) days of execution, a copy of each contract, agreement, concession, license, authorization, operating agreement or other arrangement to which it is a party and amendments thereto (collectively hereinafter referred to as “agreement” for purposes of this rule) with respect to the following:
(d) Any U.S. carrier, other than a provider of commercial mobile radio services, that is engaged in foreign communications, and enters into an agreement with a foreign carrier, is subject to the Commission's authority to require the U.S. carrier providing service on any U.S.-international routes to file, on an as-needed basis, a copy of each agreement to which it is a party.
Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 201-205, 214, 218, 403 and 651 of the Commissions Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless otherwise noted.
(c) This section shall not apply to the rates, terms and conditions in an agreement between a U.S. carrier and a foreign carrier that govern the settlement of U.S. international traffic, including the method for allocating return traffic.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, a U.S. common carrier, whether a reseller or facilities-based carrier, may engage in “switched hubbing” to countries provided the carrier complies with the following conditions:
(f) The terms and conditions of any operating or other agreement relating to the exchange of services, interchange or routing of traffic and matters concerning rates, accounting rates, division of tolls, the allocation of return traffic, or the basis of settlement of traffic balances, entered into by U.S. common carriers authorized pursuant to this part to provide facilities-based switched voice service on the U.S.-Cuba route in correspondence with a Cuban carrier that does not qualify for the presumption that it lacks market power in Cuba, shall be identical to the equivalent terms and conditions in the operating agreement of another carrier providing the same or similar service between the United States and Cuba. Carriers may seek waiver of this requirement.
(g) A carrier or other party may request Commission intervention on any U.S. international route for which competitive problems are alleged by filing with the International Bureau a petition, pursuant to this section, demonstrating anticompetitive behavior by foreign carriers that is harmful to U.S. customers. The Commission may also act on its own motion. Carriers and other parties filing complaints must support their petitions with evidence, including an affidavit and relevant commercial agreements. The International Bureau will review complaints on a case-by-case basis and take appropriate action on delegated authority pursuant to § 0.261 of this chapter. Interested parties will have 10 days from the date of issuance of a public notice of the petition to file comments or oppositions to such petitions and subsequently 7 days for replies. In the event significant, immediate harm to the public interest is likely to occur that cannot be addressed through
For purposes of this section,
For purposes of this section, a
47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the
The closing date for the comment period in the proposed rule published February 8, 2013, at 78 FR 9336, is April 9, 2013.
James P. Jordan, Senior Counsel, 202-649-3075 (not a toll-free number), Federal Housing Finance Center, Constitution Center, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Hearing Impaired is 800-877-8339.
In proposed rule FR Doc. 2013-02908, beginning on page 9336 in the issue of February 8, 2013, make the following correction in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at La Pryor, TX. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Chaparrosa Ranch Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport. Geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated.
Comments must be received on or before April 1, 2013.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2012-1099/Airspace Docket No. 12-ASW-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7716.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2012-1099/Airspace Docket No. 12-ASW-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012 and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Chaparrosa Ranch Airport, La Pryor, TX.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Chaparrosa Ranch Airport, and within 8 miles west and 4 miles east of the 339° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 18 miles north of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Atwood, KS. Decommissioning of the Atwood non-directional radio beacon (NDB) at Atwood—Rawlins County—City County Airport has made reconfiguration necessary for standard instrument approach procedures and for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Geographic coordinates would also be updated.
Comments must be received on or before April 1, 2013.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2011-1431/Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-24, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Scott Enander, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7716.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures at Atwood—Rawlins County—City County Airport, Atwood, KS. The airspace extension north of the airport would be removed due to the decommissioning of the Atwood NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. Geographic coordinates would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Controlled airspace within the existing 6.5-mile radius is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012 and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Atwood-Rawlins County-City County Airport, Atwood, KS.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Atwood-Rawlins County-City County Airport.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Long Island Sound in the vicinity of Mamaroneck Harbor for a fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. This rule is intended to restrict all vessels from a portion of Long Island Sound before, during, and immediately after the fireworks event.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 18, 2013.
Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 22, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Kristopher Kesting, Sector NY Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; Telephone (718) 354-4154, Email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
This proposed safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with the fireworks display. Based on the inherent hazards associated with fireworks, the Captain of the Port (COTP) New York has determined that fireworks launches in close proximity to water crafts pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The combination of increased number of recreational vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and debris especially burning debris falling on passing or spectator vessels has the potential to result in serious injuries or fatalities. The proposed temporary safety zone will restrict vessel movement in the Long Island Sound around the location of the fireworks launch platform before, during, and after the fireworks display.
Bay Fireworks is sponsoring a fireworks display for the Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club on the navigable waters of Long Island Sound in the vicinity of Mamaroneck Harbor, NY. The proposed safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with the fireworks display.
The fireworks display will occur from approximately 8:30 p.m. until approximately 9:15 p.m. In order to coordinate the safe movement of vessels within the area and to ensure that the area is clear of unauthorized persons and vessels before, during, and immediately after the fireworks launch, this zone will be enforced from approximately 8:00 p.m. until approximately 9:30 p.m. on May 11, 2013.
The proposed safety zone will include all navigable waters of Long Island Sound within a 240-yard radius of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 40°56′24.95″ N, 073°43′00.39″ W, approximately 520 yards northeast of Orienta Point, NY. Vessels will still be able to transit the surrounding area and may be authorized to transit through the proposed safety zone with the permission from the COTP. The COTP does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this proposed safety zone.
The fireworks barge will also have a sign on its port and starboard side labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY.” The sign will consist of 10″ high by 1.5″
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The Coast Guard's enforcement of this proposed safety zone will be of short duration, approximately 90 minutes during the scheduled fireworks event. The proposed safety zone will restrict access to only a small portion of the navigable waterways of Long Island Sound. Vessels will be able to navigate around the proposed safety zone. Furthermore, vessels may be authorized to transit through the proposed safety zone with the permission of the COTP.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a small portion of the Long Island Sound during the effective period.
This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This proposed rule would be in effect for only 85 minutes late at night when vessel traffic is low. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule may be categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 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, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Sector New York (COTP), to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
(2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.
(d)
(1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23, as well as the following regulations, apply.
(2) No vessels, except for fireworks barge and accompanying vessels, will be allowed to transit the safety zone without the permission of the COTP.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated area shall contact the COTP or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 or 718-354-4353 (Sector New York command center) to obtain permission to do so.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to revise the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for purposes of preparing state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain the national ambient air quality standards for ozone under title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This proposed revision would add
Comments must be received on or before April 1, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0393, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
David Sanders, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-3356; fax number: 919-541-0824; email address:
This proposed action would revise the EPA's definition of VOCs for purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the NAAQS for ozone under title I of the CAA, by adding
If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule, and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule base on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA's Web site
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this notice on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards. (
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant
This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule would remove Solstice
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule would remove Solstice
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials
This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the direct final rule publishing in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing,
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). This proposed revision consists of an update to the SIP-approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for the Pennsylvania counties in the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE 1997 fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before March 18, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0954 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Asrah Khadr, (215) 814-2071, or by email at khadr.asrah@epa.gov.
EPA determined on May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28782) that the Philadelphia Area attained the 1997 PM
The currently SIP-approved MVEBs for the Philadelphia Area were developed using the Highway Mobile Source Emission Factor Model (MOBILE6.2). On March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9411), EPA published a notice of availability for the MOVES2010 model for use in developing MVEBs for SIPs and for conducting transportation conformity analyses. EPA commenced a two year grace period after which time the MOVES2010 model would have to be used for transportation conformity purposes. The two year grace period was scheduled to end on March 2, 2012. On February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11394), EPA published a final rule extending the grace period for one more year to March 2, 2013 to ensure adequate time
By requesting that EPA approve its SIP revision to update the SIP-approved MVEBs of the Philadelphia Area to reflect the use of the MOVES model, Pennsylvania DEP is seeking to ensure that the applicable SIP-approved MVEBs are MOVES-based for use in transportation conformity analyses. The transportation conformity rules can be found in 40 CFR 93, Subpart A. One of the requirements for transportation conformity is that any transportation plan, transportation improvement program (TIP) or transportation project not already part of a conforming TIP must conform to the MVEBs in the applicable SIP. In order for the MVEBs in a SIP to be used to determine conformity of a TIP or a transportation project, the MVEBs must be deemed adequate and/or approved as a SIP revision. The requirements for adequacy are set forth in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi). EPA is proposing to approve the updated MVEBs of the Philadelphia Area as a SIP revision because EPA has thoroughly reviewed the SIP revision and determined that those MVEBs meet the adequacy requirements and have been correctly re-calculated to reflect the use of the MOVES model. Upon final SIP approval, the updated MVEBs will become the applicable MVEBs for use in performing transportation conformity analyses.
On November 6, 2012, Pennsylvania DEP submitted to EPA a draft SIP revision which updates the Philadelphia Area's MVEBs to reflect the use of the MOVES model. On January 29, 2013, Pennsylvania DEP submitted its formal, final SIP revision to update the Philadelphia Area's MVEBs to reflect the use of the MOVES model. The MVEBs are for PM
EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania DEP's SIP revision request from January 29, 2013 to update the SIP-approved MVEBs in the Philadelphia Area to reflect the use of the MOVES model. EPA is proposing approval because this SIP revision will allow the Philadelphia Area to continue to be in attainment of the 1997 PM
EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997 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 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 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 proposed rule concerning Pennsylvania's January 29, 2013 request to update the applicable MVEBs of the Philadelphia Area 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, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability and public comment period.
Notice is hereby given that the EPA has posted its responses to certain state and tribal designation recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2013. Please refer to
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For general questions concerning this action, please contact Rhonda Wright, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-1087, email at
On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a notice of final rulemaking that revised the primary SO
The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) (42 U.S.C. 7407). After promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, each governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for nonattainment areas, to the EPA. The EPA considers these recommendations as part of its duty to promulgate the formal area designations and boundaries for the new or revised NAAQS. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required to notify states and tribes of any intended modifications to an area designation or boundary recommendation that the EPA deems necessary.
On or around February 7, 2013, the EPA notified states and tribes of its intended designation of certain specific areas as nonattainment for the 2010 SO
The purpose of this notice is to solicit input from interested parties other than states and tribes on the EPA's recent responses regarding these areas to the state and tribal designation recommendations for the 2010 SO
Please refer to the
In establishing nonattainment area boundaries, the EPA is required to identify the area that does not meet the 2010 SO
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible.
• Make sure to provide your input by the comment period deadline identified.
At this point, the EPA is prepared to proceed with identifying as “nonattainment” most areas in locations where available monitoring data from 2009-2011 indicate violations of the 1-hour SO
To date, the EPA has identified 30 areas as not meeting the 2010 SO
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
The EPA has also established a Web site for this rulemaking at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
A contact person, with telephone number and email address, is listed at the end of each pesticide petition summary. You may also reach each contact person by mail at Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.
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.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), (21 U.S.C. 346a), requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available online at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) announced the release of new software to perform interference analyses using the methodology described in its Bulletin No. 69 (OET-69). This software, called
Comments must be filed on or before March 21, 2013 and reply comments must be filed on or before April 5, 2013.
Robert Weller, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-7397, email:
You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 13-26 and GN Docket No. 12-268, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the public Notice, see the
This is a summary of the Public Notice ET Docket No. 13-26 and GN Docket No. 12-268, DA 13-138 released February 4, 2013. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) announced the release of new software to perform interference analyses using the methodology described in its Bulletin No. 69 (OET-69). This software, called
The Commission developed the software that is currently used to implement OET-69 to support the DTV transition, and it has subsequently been used to analyze applications to modify the DTV Table of Channel Allotments. As such, the software programs developed by the FCC for those purposes are based fundamentally on source code and data from the 1990s and earlier. Since that time, some of the underlying datasets have evolved or have been replaced. In addition, parties have gained sufficient experience to have offered FCC staff informal feedback on the existing programs' relative strengths and weaknesses.
It is with these matters in mind that we have developed the
An important component of the proposed incentive auction is the repacking of broadcast television stations, including the potential reassignment of stations to new operating channels. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) requires the Commission to “make all reasonable efforts to preserve, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, the coverage area and population served of each broadcast television licensee, as determined using the methodology described in OET Bulletin 69 of the Office of Engineering and Technology.” OET-69 describes a methodology that divides the area within a digital television station's noise-limited coverage contour into approximately rectangular “grid cells,” and then evaluates these cells for coverage and, where present, interference. The Commission's
OET-69 defines certain parameter values for programmers to use when developing the software to implement OET-69's methodology. In particular, Table 4 of OET-69 lists parameter values used by the Fortran Code for the Longley-Rice (L-R) radio signal propagation model used in the implementing software, Tables 5A and 5B list the D/U ratios to be used in predicting interference, Table 6 describes the performance of the assumed receiving antennas, and Table 8 describes the elevation-plane performance of the assumed transmitting antennas. The foregoing is not an exhaustive list; OET-69 provides additional definitions and guidance. OET-69 does not, however, specify all of the parameters and methods required when developing software to implement OET-69's methodology. The choices made in implementing the methodology of OET-69 can produce different results,
The new
We are interested in feedback that discusses the capabilities of the
In developing the
In conducting the proposed incentive auction, an important objective is that we use software with improved accuracy and that makes use of the best available data to compute estimates of the coverage area and population served of each broadcast television licensee consistent with the provisions of the Spectrum Act. To that end, we solicit feedback from stakeholders, experts, and others on the implementation of the
These sorts of inaccuracies can lead to incorrect or nonsensical results when used in a computer program to predict coverage and interference. We are not proposing to modify the information in the underlying CBDS database. However, we seek comment on what methods we should use to detect information that may be inaccurate and what correction methods we should incorporate into our use of that information.
The software used to develop the original DTV Table of Allotments treated cells having such “flags” (whether from desired or interfering stations) as having coverage. This determination results in areas where we have no real information about predicted coverage or interference. Such cells are assumed to have coverage, even if neighboring cells do not. This treatment of “flagged” results implemented the Commission's decision that assumption of service is appropriate where the Longley-Rice propagation model indicates that service calculations may be dubious or unreliable. Comparisons with other propagation models suggest that the “flagged” results are typically not unreasonable.
We note that while this approach was taken for purposes of implementing OET-69, a different approach was taken in implementing OET Bulletins 72 and 73 (OET-72 and OET-73, respectively) dealing with the availability of TV service for purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act and subsequent legislation. In those cases, the L-R propagation model is used differently and for different purposes. Specifically, OET-72 and OET-73 use the L-R model to estimate whether a TV station's signal is receivable at an individual location (a viewer's home), whereas OET-69 estimates a station's signal coverage, population served and interference received over the entire geographic area it serves. With regard to OET-72 and OET-73, the Commission found that ignoring the appearance of so-called “error codes” and accepting the calculated field strength value was appropriate for determining eligibility for satellite delivery of network programming at individual locations.
We ask whether we should to continue to assume coverage in areas that have flagged results in implementing the Commission's decision that assumption of service is appropriate where the Longley-Rice propagation model indicates that service calculations may be dubious or unreliable. If not, we ask what assumptions should be made relative to coverage and population served under such conditions to more effectively implement the Commission's decision.
The Commission is making available its developmental
Installation and operating instructions are included as separate files.
The software was developed on an Apple iMac, but it is expected that the source code can be compiled on other Unix-like platforms (
Parties seeking to evaluate the
Administrative Conference of the United States.
Notice of public meetings.
Notice is hereby given of eleven public meetings of the Committee on Adjudication, Committee on Judicial Review, Committee on Regulation, and Committee on Rulemaking of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States. At these meetings, the committees will consider reports by Conference consultants and work on preparing recommendations. These meetings will be open to the public.
Committee on Adjudication: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Monday, April 8, 2013 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Tuesday, April 30, 2013 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Committee on Judicial Review: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, April 3, 2013 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Monday, April 22, 2013 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Committee on Regulation: Monday, March 4, 2013, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; Tuesday, April 2, 2013 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; and Monday, April 29, 2013 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Committee on Rulemaking: Monday, March 25, 2013 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Tuesday, April 23, 2013 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Please note that the meetings may adjourn early, or, in the case of second or third meetings of respective committees, may be cancelled, if all business has been completed. Meeting updates will be posted on the Conference's Web site (
The meetings will be held at 1120 20th Street NW., Suite 702 South, Washington, DC 20036.
Amber Williams (Committee on Adjudication),
Additional information about the committee meetings, the nature of the projects and related materials, how to attend (including information about remote access and obtaining special accommodations for persons with disabilities), can be found on the “Research Projects” and “Meetings & Events” sections of the Conference's Web site (
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potentialpersons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 18, 2013 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request an extension for and revision of a currently approved information collection for Almonds Grown in California, M.O. No. 981.
Comments on this notice must be received by April 16, 2013.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet:
Weiya Zeng, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 690-3870, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on this notice by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Assistant to the Director, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone (202) 720-9922, Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Email:
The order and its rules and regulations authorize the Almond Board of California (Board), the agency responsible for local administration of the order, to require handlers and other certain entities to submit information.
In September 2007, a mandatory program was implemented under the order to help reduce the potential for Salmonella in almonds. The Board has developed forms as a means for persons to file required information with the Board relating to the treatment of almonds to reduce the potential for Salmonella. Almond handlers are
The information collected is used only by authorized representatives of USDA, including AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Program's regional and headquarters' staff, and authorized employees and agents of the Board. Authorized Board employees, agents, and the industry are the primary users of the information, and AMS is the secondary user.
Comments should reference this docket number and the appropriate marketing order and be sent to the USDA in care of the Docket Clerk at the address above. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App.), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing an upcoming meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). Written public comments are invited in advance of the meeting, and the meeting will include scheduled time for oral comments from the public.
The meeting will be held April 9-11, 2013, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day. The deadline to submit written public comments and sign up for oral public comments is Tuesday, March 19, 2013.
The meeting will take place at the Hilton Portland and Executive Tower, 921 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Information and instructions pertaining to the meeting are posted at the following Web address:
For printed materials or additional information, write to Ms. Michelle Arsenault, Special Assistant, National Organic Standards Board, USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2648—So., Mail Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268; Phone: (202) 720-3252; Email:
The NOSB makes recommendations about whether a substance should be allowed or prohibited in organic production and/or handling, assists in the development of standards for organic production, and advises the Secretary on other aspects of the implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522). The NOSB currently has seven subcommittees working on various aspects of the Organic Program. The subcommittees are: Compliance, Accreditation, and Certification; Crops; Handling; Livestock; Materials; Policy Development; and the ad hoc Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). The primary purpose of NOSB meetings is to provide an opportunity for the organic community to provide input on proposed NOSB recommendations and discussion items. The meetings also allow the NOSB to receive updates from the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) on issues pertaining to organic agriculture. The meeting will be open to the public. The meeting agenda, NOSB proposals and discussion documents, instructions for submitting and viewing public comments, and instructions for requesting a time slot for oral comments are available on the NOP Web site at
The NOSB has scheduled time for oral comments from the public, and will accommodate as many individuals and organizations as possible during these sessions. Individuals and organizations wishing to make oral presentations at the meeting must pre-register to request one time slot by visiting
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this notice announces the Office of Management and Budget's approval of a collection of information contained in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's final rule regarding the possession, use, and transfer of select agents and toxins.
For information on select agents and toxins, contact Mr. Charles L. Divan, Acting Director, APHIS Agriculture Select Agent Program, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 2, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3300, option 1. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
On October 5, 2012, we published in the
Because of changes made in the final rule in response to comments or for other reasons, some of those provisions included information collection requirements that differed from those originally submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conjunction with the proposed rule, which was published in the
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice lists the newspapers that Ranger Districts, Forests, and the Regional Office of the Rocky Mountain Region will use to publish notices for pubic comments on actions subject to the provisions of 36 CFR part 215 or 218. The intended effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public which newspapers will be used to publish legal notices of actions subject to public comment and decisions subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215 or objection under 36 CFR 218.
Responsible Officials in the Rocky Mountain Region of the USDA Forest Service will publish notices of availability for comment and notices of decisions that may be subject to administrative appeal under 36 CFR Part 215. These notices will be published in the legal notice section of the newspapers listed in the Supplementary Information section of this notice. As provided in 36 CFR 215.5, 215.6, and 215.7, such notice shall constitute legal evidence that the agency has given timely and constructive notice for comment and notice of decisions that may be subject to administrative appeal. Newspaper publication of notices of decisions is in addition to direct notice to those who have requested notice in writing and to those known to be interested in or affected by a specific decision.
Additionally, Responsible Officials in the Rocky Mountain Region of the USDA Forest Service will publish notices of availability for comment and notices of decisions that may be subject to the objection process under 36 CFR part 218. These notices will be published in the legal notice section of the newspapers listed in the Supplementary Information section of this notice. As provided in 36 CFR 218.4 and 218.9, such notice shall constitute legal evidence that the agency has given timely and constructive notice for comment and notice of decisions that may be subject to the objection process. Newspaper publication of notices of decisions is in addition to direct notice to those who have requested notice in writing and to those known to be
Use of these newspapers for the purpose of publishing legal notices for comment and decisions that may be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215 or subject to objection under 36 CFR part 218 shall begin February 15, 2013 and continue until further notice.
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region; ATTN: Regional Appeals Manager; 740 Simms Street, Golden, Colorado 80401.
John Rupe, 303 275-5148.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
Responsible Officials in the Rocky Mountain Region of the USDA Forest Service will give legal notice of decisions that may be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215 or subject to the objection process under 36 CFR part 218 in the following newspapers which are listed by Forest Service administrative unit. Where more than one newspaper is listed for any unit, the first newspaper listed is the primary newspaper which shall be used to constitute legal evidence that the agency has given timely and constructive notice for comment and for decisions that may be subject to administrative appeal or objection process. As provided in 36 CFR 215.15, the time frame for appeal shall be based on the date of publication of a notice for decision in the primary newspaper. As provided in 36 CFR 218.9, the time frame for an objection shall be based on the date of publication of a notice for decision in the primary newspaper.
Canyon Lakes District:
Pawnee District:
Boulder District:
Clear Creek District:
Sulphur District:
Grand Valley District:
Paonia District:
Gunnison Districts:
Norwood District:
Ouray District:
San Carlos District:
Comanche District-Carrizo Unit:
Comanche District-Timpas Unit:
Cimarron District: The Elkhart
South Platte District:
Leadville District:
Salida District:
South Park District:
Pikes Peak District:
Aspen-Sopris District:
Blanco District:
Dillon District:
Eagle-Holy Cross District:
Rifle District:
Bessey District/Charles E. Bessey Tree Nursery:
Pine Ridge District:
Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest:
Fall River and Wall Districts, Buffalo Gap National Grassland:
Fort Pierre National Grassland:
Laramie District:
Douglas District:
Brush Creek-Hayden District:
Hahns Peak-Bears Ears District:
Yampa District:
Parks District:
Clarks Fork District:
Wapiti and Greybull Districts:
Wind River District:
Washakie District:
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of reporting requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled BE-605, Quarterly Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States—Transactions of U.S. Affiliate with Foreign Parent. This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the surveys. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter end; 45 days if the report is for the final quarter of the financial reporting year. The BE-605 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) The quarterly Form BE-605 is required from each U.S. business enterprise in which a foreign entity has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of 10 percent or more of the voting stock or an equivalent interest if an unincorporated business and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE-605.
(b) Entities required to report will be contacted individually by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
22 U.S.C. 3101-3108.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of reporting requirements.
By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory surveys titled BE-577, Quarterly Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad—Direct Transactions of U.S. Reporter with Foreign Affiliate. This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.
This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the surveys. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter end; 45 days if the report is for the final quarter of the financial reporting year. The BE-577 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) The quarterly Form BE-577 is required from each U.S. person that has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock in an incorporated foreign business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE-577.
(b) Entities required to report will be contacted individually by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
22U.S.C. 3101-3108.
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an Open Meeting Cancellation.
The National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE) has cancelled its open meeting, originally planned for Tuesday, February 19, 2013. The meeting, which was to be the quarterly meeting of NACIE, will not be held this quarter. We expect the next quarterly meeting to be held later this year. Please visit the Web site of the Economic Development Administration (
Nish Acharya, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Room 70007R, 1401 Constitution Avenue, Washington DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-4068.
On August 24, 2011, in the U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Connor Hayden Kraegel (“Kraegel”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Kraegel was convicted of knowingly and willfully exporting from the United States a set of AN/AVS-6 night vision goggles, which is designated as a defense article on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained from the Department of State a license for such export. Kraegel was sentenced to eight months of prison, to run concurrent with the sentence imposed in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Case 10-27-BU-SWM. Kraegel was entitled to credit for time served and was released from prison on April 2, 2012. Kraegel 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 Kraegel's conviction for violating the AECA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Kraegel to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. I have received a submission from Kraegel. 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 Kraegel's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Kraegel's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Kraegel had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
I. Until August 24, 2021, Connor Hayden Kraegel, with a last known address at: 19917 Spurrier Avenue, Poolesville, MD 20837, and when acting for or on behalf of Kraegel, 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 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
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 Kraegel 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 August 24, 2021.
VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Kraegel 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 Kraegel. This Order shall be published in the
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on
March 7, 2013, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW. Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Status reports by working group chairs.
3. Public comments and Proposals.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on October 19, 2012, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482·2813.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 6, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 23, 2009, through October 31, 2010. For the final results, we continue to find that certain companies covered by this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value.
Michael Romani or Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0198 or (202) 482-5760, respectively.
On December 6, 2011, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC.
On April 5, 2012, the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition (the petitioner) alleged that Korean respondents Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd., and Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. and SH Trading Inc., and their respective Chinese subsidiaries Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. (Weihai), and Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Shinhan), sold diamond sawblades into
We extended the due date for the final results of review to June 4, 2012.
On January 8, 2013, we issued a post-preliminary memorandum finding that the information submitted by Weihai and Qingdao Shinhan is reliable for the final results of the review.
We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
We continue to find the information Weihai and Qingdao Shinhan submitted in this review to be reliable for the final results of review.
The merchandise subject to the order is diamond sawblades. The diamond sawblades subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheadings 8202 to 8206 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and may also enter under 6804.21.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Final Decision Memorandum. The written description is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Final Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Final Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
We preliminarily found that Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Deda) did not have any exports of subject merchandise during the POR and, on this basis, we stated our intent to rescind the review in part.
On March 28, 2011, the petitioner withdrew its request for review of the following companies:
In the
In the
In the
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate.
In the
In the
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made revisions that have changed the results for certain companies. Additionally, we have made calculation programming changes for the final results. For further details on the changes we made for these final results,
As a result of the administrative review, we determine that the following weighted-average percentage dumping margins exist for the period January 23, 2009, through October 31, 2010:
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to this review as described below.
For ATM Single Entity, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries
We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in this final results of review for each exporter as listed above, except if the rate is zero or
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Department is issuing an antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers (“wind towers”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
Lilit Astvatsatrian, Shawn Higgins, Thomas Martin, or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412, (202) 482-0679, (202) 482-3936, or (202) 482-4852, respectively.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), on December 26, 2012, the Department published the final determination of sales at less than fair value in the antidumping duty investigation of wind towers from the PRC.
The merchandise covered by this order are certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind towers are designed to support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with a
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or external components attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached to the wind towers or sections thereof.
Merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 7308.20.0020
As noted above, on February 8, 2013, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of wind towers from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of wind towers from the PRC.
Section 736(b)(1) of the Act establishes a “general rule” that, if the ITC, in its final determination, finds “material injury or threat of material injury which, but for the suspension of liquidation under section 733(d)(2) {of the Act} would have led to a finding of material injury,” then entries of the subject merchandise, the liquidation of which has been suspended pursuant to the Department's preliminary determination under section 733(d)(2) of the Act, shall be subject to the imposition of antidumping duties. Section 736(b)(2) of the Act establishes a “special rule” that, if the ITC's final injury determination is based on the threat of material injury (other than threat of material injury described in the “general rule”) antidumping duties shall be assessed on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination. Under this “special rule,” the Department orders CBP to terminate suspension and refund any cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties for entries made since the Department's preliminary antidumping duty determination
After reviewing the ITC's final determination, the Department determines that the “special rule” pursuant to section 736(b)(2) of the Act is applicable to the imposition of antidumping duties under this order. Of the votes in the ITC's final determination, two commissioners determined that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of utility scale wind towers from the PRC and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, one commissioner determined that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of such imports and further determined that he would not have found material injury but for the suspension of liquidation, and three commissioners determined that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of such imports.
In accordance with sections 735(c)(1)(B) and 736(b)(2) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation on all entries of subject merchandise from the PRC made on or after the date of the publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination. The Department will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as indicated in the chart below. These cash deposit rates will be adjusted, where appropriate, for export subsidies. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties based on the weighted-average dumping margins, adjusted, where appropriate,
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to wind towers from the PRC pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act.
This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing antidumping duty orders on large residential washers (washers) from Mexico and the Republic of Korea (Korea).
Brian Smith (Mexico) or David Goldberger (Korea), AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-4136, respectively.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published its affirmative final determinations of sales at less-than-fair-value in the antidumping duty investigations of washers from Korea and Mexico on December 26 and 27, 2012, respectively.
The products covered by these orders are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Mexico and Korea.
For purposes of these orders, the term “large residential washers” denotes all automatic clothes washing machines, regardless of the orientation of the rotational axis, except as noted below, with a cabinet width (measured from its widest point) of at least 24.5 inches (62.23 cm) and no more than 32.0 inches (81.28 cm).
Also covered are certain subassemblies used in large residential washers, namely: (1) All assembled cabinets designed for use in large residential washers which incorporate, at a minimum: (a) at least three of the six cabinet surfaces; and (b) a bracket; (2) all assembled tubs
Excluded from the scope are stacked washer-dryers and commercial washers. The term “stacked washer-dryers” denotes distinct washing and drying machines that are built on a unitary frame and share a common console that controls both the washer and the dryer. The term “commercial washer” denotes an automatic clothes washing machine designed for the “pay per use” market meeting either of the following two definitions:
(1) (a) it contains payment system electronics;
(2) (a) it contains payment system electronics; (b) the payment system electronics are enabled (whether or not the payment acceptance device has been installed at the time of importation) such that, in normal operation,
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines with a verticalrotational axis and a rated capacity of less than 3.70 cubic feet, as certified to the U.S. Department of Energy pursuant to 10 CFR 429.12 and 10 CFR 429.20, and in accordance with the test procedures established in 10 CFR part 430.
The products subject to these orders are currently classifiable under subheading 8450.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to these orders may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
As stated above, on February 8, 2013, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found material injury with respect to washers from Mexico and Korea.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amounts listed below for all relevant entries of washers from Mexico and Korea. These antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of washers from Mexico and Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 3, 2012, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations,
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all entries of washers from Mexico and Korea. We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts indicated below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
Consistent with our practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of washers from Mexico and Korea, we extended the four-month period to no
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of washers from Mexico and Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after January 30, 2013, the date provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to washers from Mexico and Korea pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at
These orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and section 351.211 of the Department's regulations.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Department is issuing an antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers (“wind towers”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”). In addition, the Department is amending its final determination to correct certain ministerial errors.
Magd Zalok or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4162 or (202) 482-0650, respectively.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), on December 26, 2012, the Department published the final determination of sales at less than fair value in the antidumping duty investigation of wind towers from Vietnam.
The merchandise covered by this order are certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind towers are designed to support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with a minimum height of 50 meters measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle (
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope whether or not they are joined with nonsubject
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached to the wind towers or sections thereof.
Merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 7308.20.0020
On December 26, 2012, the Department published its affirmative final determination in this proceeding.
After analyzing all interested party comments and rebuttals, we have determined, in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made the following ministerial errors in our calculations for the
• We unintentionally omitted the factors of production (“FOPs”) for steel bar, stainless steel pipe, flat-rolled plates and stone grit from the normal value used in the dumping margin calculation program.
• We unintentionally omitted the FOPs for steel bar, stainless steel pipe and flat-rolled plates from the calculation of the average surrogate value used as facts available to account for the difference between the packed weight of a tower and the sum of the FOPs of such a tower.
In the
As noted above, on February 8, 2013, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of wind towers from Vietnam. Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of wind towers from Vietnam.
Section 736(b)(1) of the Act establishes a “general rule” that, if the ITC, in its final determination, finds “material injury or threat of material injury which, but for the suspension of liquidation under section 733(d)(2) {of the Act} would have led to a finding of material injury,” then entries of the subject merchandise, the liquidation of which has been suspended pursuant to the Department's preliminary determination under section 733(d)(2) of the Act, shall be subject to the imposition of antidumping duties. Section 736(b)(2) of the Act establishes a “special rule” that, if the ITC's final injury determination is based on the threat of material injury (other than threat of material injury described in the “general rule”) antidumping duties shall be assessed on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination. Under this “special rule,” the Department orders CBP to terminate suspension and refund any cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties for entries made since the Department's preliminary antidumping duty determination
After reviewing the ITC's final determination, the Department determined that the “special rule” pursuant to section 736(b)(2) of the Act is applicable to the imposition of antidumping duties under this order. Of the votes in the ITC's final determination, two commissioners determined that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of utility scale wind towers from the People's Republic of China and Vietnam, one commissioner determined that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of such imports and further determined that he would not have found material injury but for the suspension of liquidation, and three commissioners determined that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of such imports.
In accordance with sections 735(c)(1)(B) and 736(b)(2) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation on all entries of subject merchandise from Vietnam made on or after the date of the publication of the ITC's final affirmative determination. The Department will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as indicated in the chart below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties based on the weighted-average dumping margins. The rate for the Vietnam-wide entity applies to all combinations of producers and exporters of subject merchandise not specifically listed under the “Amended Final Determination of Antidumping Investigation” section below.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to wind towers from Vietnam pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act.
This order and amended final determination are published in accordance with sections 736(a) and 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211 and 351.224(e).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Department is issuing a countervailing duty order on utility scale wind towers (“wind towers”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
Kristen Johnson and Patricia Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793 or (202) 482-1503, respectively.
In accordance with sections 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), on December 26, 2012, the Department published the final determination in the countervailing duty investigation of wind towers from the PRC.
The merchandise covered by this order are certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind towers are designed to support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with a minimum height of 50 meters measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle (
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or external components attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached to the wind towers or sections thereof.
Merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 7308.20.0020
As noted above, on February 8, 2013, in accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of wind towers from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties equal to the amount of the net countervailable subsidy for all relevant entries of wind towers from the PRC.
Section 706(b)(1) of the Act establishes a “general rule” that, if the ITC, in its final determination, finds “material injury or threat of material injury which, but for the suspension of liquidation under section 703(d)(2) {of the Act} would have led to a finding of material injury,” then entries of the subject merchandise, the liquidation of which has been suspended pursuant to the Department's preliminary determination under section 703(d)(2) of the Act, shall be subject to the imposition of countervailing duties. Section 706(b)(2) of the Act establishes a “special rule” that, if the ITC's final injury determination is based on the threat of material injury (other than threat of material injury described in the “general rule”) countervailing duties shall be assessed on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination. Under this “special rule,” the Department orders CBP to terminate suspension and refund any cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for entries made since the Department's preliminary countervailing duty determination
After reviewing the ITC's final determination, the Department determines that the “special rule” pursuant to section 706(b)(2) of the Act is applicable to the imposition of countervailing duties under this order. Of the votes in the ITC's final determination, two commissioners determined that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of utility scale wind towers from the PRC and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, one commissioner determined that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of such imports and further determined that he would not have found material injury but for the suspension of liquidation, and three commissioners determined that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of such imports.
In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B) and 706(b)(2) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation on all entries of subject merchandise from the PRC made on or after the date of the publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination.
Net countervailable subsidy rates noted below.
This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to wind towers from the PRC pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. This order is published in accordance with section 706 (a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
for Import Administration.
________________________
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing a countervailing duty order on large residential washers (washers) from the Republic of Korea (Korea).
Justin M. Neuman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0486.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on December 26, 2012, the Department published its final determination in the countervailing duty investigation of washers from Korea.
The products covered by this order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Korea.
For purposes of this order, the term “large residential washers” denotes all automatic clothes washing machines, regardless of the orientation of the rotational axis, except as noted below, with a cabinet width (measured from its widest point) of at least 24.5 inches (62.23 cm) and no more than 32.0 inches (81.28 cm).
Also covered are certain subassemblies used in large residential washers, namely: (1) all assembled cabinets designed for use in large residential washers which incorporate, at a minimum: (a) At least three of the six cabinet surfaces; and (b) a bracket; (2) all assembled tubs
Excluded from the scope are stacked washer-dryers and commercial washers. The term “stacked washer-dryers” denotes distinct washing and drying machines that are built on a unitary frame and share a common console that controls both the washer and the dryer. The term “commercial washer” denotes an automatic clothes washing machine designed for the “pay per use” market meeting either of the following two definitions:
(1)(a) It contains payment system electronics;
(2)(a) It contains payment system electronics; (b) the payment system electronics are enabled (whether or not the payment acceptance device has been installed at the time of importation) such that, in normal operation,
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines with a vertical rotational axis and a rated capacity of less than 3.70 cubic
The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheading 8450.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
As stated above, on February 8, 2013, in accordance with section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found material injury with respect to washers from Korea.
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties equal to the amounts listed below for all relevant entries of washers from Korea. These countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of washers from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 5, 2012, the date of publication of the preliminary determination,
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, we will direct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation on all relevant entries of washers from Korea. We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts indicated below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Accordingly, effective the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, cash deposits equal to the amounts indicated below:
This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to washers from Korea pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find an updated list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect at
This countervailing duty order is issued and published in accordance with sections 705(c)(2) and 706 of the Act, and section 351.211 of the Department's regulations.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for a public meeting of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).
The meeting will be held on March 12, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 6029, Washington, DC 20230.
Richard Boll, Office of Service Industries, International Trade Administration. (Phone: (202) 482-1135 or Email:
The meeting will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Service Industries (OSI), 1401 Constitution Ave NW., Room 11014,
For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on March 5, 2013. Comments received after March 5, 2013, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meeting. The minutes of the meeting will be posted on the Committee Web site within 60 days of the meeting.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, 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.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2013.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Steve Turner, (305) 361-4482 or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
Fishery quotas are established for many species in the fishery management plans developed by both the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The Southeast Fisheries Science Center has been delegated the responsibility to monitor these quotas. To do so in a timely manner, seafood dealers that handle these species are required to report the purchases (landings) of these species. The frequency of these reporting requirements varies depending on the magnitude of the quota (
In addition, information collection included in this family of forms includes interview with fishermen to gather information on the fishing effort, location and type of gear used on individual trips. This data collection is conducted for a subsample of the fishing trips and vessel/trips in selected commercial fisheries in the Southeast region. Fishing trips and individuals are selected at random to provide a viable statistical sample. These data are used for scientific analyses that support critical conservation and management decisions made by national and international fishery management organizations.
Dealer reports may be emailed, faxed or mailed. Information from fisherman is obtained by face-to-face interviews.
Dealer reporting for monitoring Federal fishery annual catch limits (ACLs): Coastal fisheries dealers reporting, 10 minutes; mackerel dealer reporting (non-gillnet), 10 minutes; mackerel dealer reporting (gillnet), 10 minutes; mackerel vessel reporting (gillnet), 10 minutes; wreckfish dealer reporting, 10 minutes.
Bioprofile data from Trip Interview programs (TIP): Shrimp interviews, 10 minutes; Fin Fish interviews, 10 minutes.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
In addition to a Council Member Visioning Workshop, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the: Joint South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC)/Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) King and Spanish Mackerel Committee; Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; Dolphin Wahoo Committee; Golden Crab Committee; Snapper Grouper Committee; Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee; Information & Education Committee; Law Enforcement Committee; Executive Finance Committee; and a meeting of the Full Council. The Council will take action as necessary. The Council will also hold an informal public question and answer
The Council meeting will be held from 9 a.m. on Monday, March 4, 2013 until 5 p.m. on Friday, March 8, 2013.
The meeting will be held at the Sea Palms Resort and Conference Center, 5445 Frederica Road, St. Simons Island, GA 31522; telephone: (800) 841-6268 or (912) 638-3351; fax: (912) 638-5416.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:
Receive a presentation by the Ad Hoc Visioning Committee, discuss the process and provide direction to staff.
1. Receive and discuss updates on the status of commercial and recreational catches versus quotas for species under Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and take action as appropriate.
2. Receive an overview of the Joint South Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico Mackerel Amendment 19, pertaining to permits and tournament sale requirements, and Amendment 20, regarding boundaries and transit provisions. The joint committee will modify the amendments as appropriate and provide guidance to staff.
3. Receive an overview of actions and alternatives in the South Atlantic Mackerel Framework, modify the amendment as appropriate and provide guidance to staff.
1. Review and discuss actions and alternatives in Coral Amendment 8, pertaining to Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) and transit through the Oculina HAPC. Provide guidance to staff.
2. Receive a draft of the Council's Coral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Review and discuss input from the Habitat and Coral Advisory Panels (APs) and provide guidance to staff.
3. Receive and discuss an update on Ecosystem activities and provide guidance to staff.
1. Receive and discuss updates on the status of commercial and recreational catches versus quotas and take action as necessary.
2. Receive an overview of scoping comments as well as the Decision Document for Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 5, pertaining to bag limit sales of fish and changes to the ACL and the Allowable Biological Catch (ABC). Discuss actions and alternatives to Amendment 5 and provide direction to staff.
1. Receive and discuss the status of commercial catches versus quotas and take action as necessary.
2. Receive a report from the Golden Crab AP meeting.
3. Receive an update on the status of Golden Crab Amendment 6, regarding catch shares. Determine whether to proceed with Amendment 6 and take action as necessary.
1. Receive and discuss updates on the status of commercial and recreational catches versus quotas for species under ACLs and take action as necessary.
2. Discuss the status of amendments currently under formal review as well as a request for an extension of the yellowtail snapper temporary rule.
3. Receive an overview of Snapper Grouper Amendment 30, regarding Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS), including a VMS presentation. Discuss the amendment, modify it as appropriate, select preferred alternatives and recommend approval of the amendment for public hearings.
4. Discuss Regulatory Amendment 18, pertaining to vermilion snapper and red porgy. Review public hearing comments, modify the amendment as appropriate, select preferred alternatives, recommend approval of the amendment for formal Secretarial review, and deem the codified text as necessary and appropriate.
5. Discuss Amendment 27, pertaining to blue runner and the management authority for yellowtail snapper, mutton snapper and Nassau grouper. Review public hearing comments, modify the amendment as appropriate, select preferred alternatives, recommend approval of the amendment for formal Secretarial review, and deem the codified text as necessary and appropriate.
6. Discuss Regulatory Amendment 14, relating to management measures for greater amberjack, mutton snapper, gray triggerfish, hogfish, black sea bass, vermilion snapper and gag grouper. Review the options paper, provide guidance to staff on actions and alternatives, and discuss the timing of the amendment.
7. Discuss Regulatory Amendment 16 options, relating to management measures for the commercial tilefish longline fishery. Review the options paper, provide guidance to staff on actions and alternatives, and discuss the timing of the amendment.
8. Discuss Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and HAPCs for speckled hind and warsaw grouper. Review the results of the MPA Expert Workgroup Meeting, provide guidance to staff on actions and alternatives, and discuss timing.
There will be an informal public question and answer session with the NMFS Regional Administrator and the Council Chairman on Wednesday, March 6, 2013, beginning at 5:30 p.m.
1. Receive an update on the status of the Joint South Atlantic/Gulf Generic Dealer Amendment, revise the amendment as appropriate and recommend approval of the amendment for formal Secretarial review.
2. Review information that relates to bycatch action in Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3 (CE-BA 3). Revise the amendment as appropriate and recommend approval of the amendment for formal Secretarial review.
3. Review the Joint South Atlantic/Gulf Generic For-Hire Reporting Amendment that pertains to the South Atlantic. Review the results of the Gulf Council actions, revise this portion of the amendment as appropriate, and recommend approval of these actions for formal Secretarial review. Additionally, review the information in the amendment that applies to both the Gulf and the South Atlantic, review the results of the Gulf Council actions, provide guidance to staff, and recommend approval of the next steps in the development of the amendment.
4. Receive an overview of both the Joint South Atlantic/Gulf Generic
1. Receive an update on the Joint Outreach Projects: Marine Recreational Education Program (MREP) and Managing Our Nations' Fisheries 3 Conference.
2. Receive an update on the use of social media tools, including: The Atlantic Coast Communication Group Social Media Workshop; the status of the smartphone regulation application; and the Council's use of Facebook. Review and discuss the recommendations of the Information & Education (I&E) AP and provide committee recommendations for Council consideration.
3. Review and discuss the recommendations of the Joint Law Enforcement (LE) and I&E AP meeting regarding outreach efforts for VMS and provide direction to staff.
4. Receive an update on the SAFMC Web site upgrade, review and discuss the recommendations of the Joint LE and I&E AP meeting regarding the upgrade and provide recommendations for Council consideration.
5. Review and discuss the proposed outreach activities for 2013-14 as well as recommendations from the I&E AP. Provide recommendations for Council consideration.
6. Review the Council Visioning Process and the Strategic Planning Process for the Information & Education Program. Review and discuss recommendations from the I&E AP and provide direction to staff.
7. Discuss the recommendations from the Joint LE and I&E AP meeting regarding communication improvements for regulatory and law enforcement issues with officers and field offices. Provide direction to staff.
1. Receive a report from the LE AP meeting and the Joint LE and I&E AP meeting. Discuss the reports and take action as appropriate.
1. Receive an update on the status of the federal fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget and the calendar year (CY) 2013 budget expenditures.
2. Receive an update on the Joint Committee on South Florida Management Issues activities.
3. Discuss Council Follow-up and Priorities and address other issues as appropriate.
8:30-8:45 a.m.: Call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda and approve the December 2012 minutes.
8:45 a.m.: A formal public comment session will be held on: Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 18; Snapper Grouper Amendment 27; the extension of the yellowtail snapper temporary rule; Joint South Atlantic/Gulf Generic Dealer Amendment; Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3; Joint South Atlantic/Gulf Generic For-Hire Reporting Amendment (South Atlantic only); followed by comment on any other item on the agenda.
10:30-11:15 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee and will approve the following amendments for formal Secretarial review: The extension of the yellowtail snapper temporary rule; Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 18; and Snapper Grouper Amendment 27. The Council will approve Snapper Grouper Amendment 30 for public hearing. The Council will consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
11:15 a.m.-12 noon: The Council will receive a presentation on Amendment 8 to the Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan. This amendment pertains to commercial swordfish permits.
1-1:15 p.m.: The Council will receive a legal briefing on litigation. (CLOSED SESSION)
1:15-1:45 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee and will approve the following amendments for formal Secretarial review: the Joint South Atlantic/Gulf Generic Dealer Amendment; CE-BA 3; and the Joint South Atlantic/Gulf Generic For-Hire Reporting Amendment (South Atlantic only). The Council will consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
1:45-2 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the King & Spanish Mackerel Committee, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
2-2:15 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
2:15-2:30 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Dolphin Wahoo Committee, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
2:30-2:45 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Golden Crab Committee, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
2:45-3 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Information & Education Committee, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
3-3:15 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Law Enforcement Committee, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
3:15-3:30 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Executive Finance Committee, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
3:30-5 p.m.: The Council will receive presentations and status reports from the NOAA Southeast Regional Office (SERO) and the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), review and develop recommendations on Experimental Fishing Permits, review agency and liaison reports, and discuss other business, including upcoming meetings.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 USC 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”) has determined that certain three-layered composite fabric, as specified below, is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries. The product will be added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities.
Maria Dybczak, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3651.
The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act requires the President to establish
On January 16, 2013, the Chairman of CITA received a request for a Commercial Availability determination (“Request”) from Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. on behalf of VF Corp. for certain three-layered composite fabric, as specified below. On January 18, 2013, in accordance with CITA's procedures, CITA notified interested parties of the Request, which was posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceedings. In its notification, CITA advised that any Response with an Offer to Supply (“Response”) must be submitted by January 31, 2013, and any Rebuttal Comments to a Response must be submitted by February 6, 2013, in accordance with sections 6 and 7 of CITA's procedures. No interested entity submitted a Response to the Request advising CITA of its objection to the Request and its ability to supply the subject product.
In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, and section 8(c)(2) of CITA's procedures, as no interested entity submitted a Response objecting to the Request and providing an offer to supply the subject product, CITA has determined to add the specified fabric to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement.
The subject product has been added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceedings.
Fiber Content: 83.5% to 88.5% polyester; 13.3%-14.7% spandex.
Yarn Size (single ply, warp and filling): Textured polyester: 80.9 to 85.8 decitex/144 filament (116.5 to 123.6
Nm/144 filament) (72.8 to 77.3 denier/144 filament); Spandex: 43.1 to 45.7 decitex (218.4 to 231.8 Nm) (38.8 to 41.2 denier).
Thread Count: 44.9-49.6 warp ends per sq. cm by 35.2-41.3 filling picks per sq. cm.
Weave type: Plain weave.
Weight: 118.1 to 130.2 g/sq. m (3.5 to 3.9 oz./sq. yd).
Finish: Woven face—piece dyed and/or printed; Woven back—piece dyed.
Fiber content: 100% polyester.
Yarn Size (single ply): 80.9 to 85.8 decitex (72.8 to 77.3 Denier) (116.5 to 123.6 Nm).
Weave type: circular double knit looped pile.
Weight: 157.1 to 173.2 g/sq. m (4.6 to 5.1 oz/sq. yd).
Finish: Knit face—piece dyed; Knit back—piece dyed.
Weight: 333.3 to 367.5 gm/sq. m (9.8 to 10.8 oz/sq. yd).
Width: 130 cm (51.18 inches).
Finish: Full contact bonding.
Windproof: ASTM D737—Initial 1.0 cfm; 3x wash = 1.0 cfm.
Durable water resistant: AATCC 22—Initial >= 90 points; 10x wash >= 70 points.
High light fastness: AATCC 16 Opt 3—Class 3.0 @ 40 hours AFU.
Low Range Hydrostatic: JIS 1092—Initial 20,000 mm; 3x wash—20,000 mm. AATCC 127—Initial 20,000 mm; 3x wash 20,000 mm.
Water Vapour Permeability: JIS 1099—Initial 20,000 g/sq. m/24 hours; 3x wash 20,000 g/sq. m per 24 hours.
Water Vapour Transmission: ASTM E96 B—Initial 500 g/sq. m/24 hours; 3x wash 500 g/sq. m per 24 hours.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). CNCS requested that OMB review and approve its emergency request by February 22, 2013, for a period of six months. A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Amy Borgstrom, (202) 606-6930 or by email at
Unfortunately, since CNCS requested OMB's approval of this emergency request by February 22, 2013, there will be not enough time for the public to provide comments through this
If normal clearance procedures are followed, CNCS and the Department of Education will lose the opportunity to collaborate on these partnerships, as funds must be obligated by September 30, 2013. In addition, we want to ensure that we allow enough time for applicants to submit quality applications and for the agencies to conduct a thorough review.
We are particularly interested in making grant awards in time for the Education program to be operational at the start of the school year (August/September 2013). If we begin the standard OMB clearance procedure now, we will not be able to meet this goal.
DoD.
Reestablishment of Federal Advisory Committee.
Under the provisions of 50 U.S.C. 1903 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b) (“the Sunshine Act”), and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a), the Department of Defense (DoD) gives notice that it is reestablishing the charter for the National Security Education Board (“the Board”).
The Board is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee that shall provide the Secretary of Defense with independent advice and recommendation on developing the national capacity to educate U.S. citizens to understand foreign cultures, strengthen U.S. economic competitiveness, and enhance international cooperation and security.
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The Board, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1903(d) and consistent with Charter 37 of Title 50 U.S.C. shall perform the following functions:
a. Develop criteria for awarding scholarships, fellowships, and grants, including an order of priority in such awards that favors individuals expressing an interest in national security issues or pursuing a career in a national security position.
b. Provide for wide dissemination of information regarding the activities assisted under the statute.
c. Establish qualifications for students desiring scholarships or fellowships, and institutions of higher education desiring grants including, in the case of students desiring a scholarship or fellowship, a requirement that the students have a demonstrated commitment to the study of the discipline for which the scholarship or fellowship is to be awarded.
d. After taking into account the annual analyses of trends in language, international, area, and counter-proliferation studies under 50 U.S.C. 1906(b)(1), make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense regarding:
i. Which countries are not emphasized in other U.S. study abroad programs, such as countries in which few U.S. students are studying and countries which are of importance to the national security interests of the United States, and are, therefore, critical countries for the purposes of 50 U.S.C. 1902(a)(1)(A);
ii. Which areas within the disciplines described in 50 U.S.C. 1902(a)(1)(B) relating to the national security interests of the United States are areas of study in which U.S. students are deficient in learning and are, therefore, critical areas within those disciplines for the purposes of that section;
iii. Which areas within the disciplines described in 50 U.S.C. 1902(a)(1)(C) are areas in which U.S. students, educators, and Government employees are deficient in learning and in which insubstantial numbers of U.S. institutions of higher education provide training and are, therefore, critical areas within those disciplines for the purposes of that section;
iv. How students desiring scholarships or fellowships can be encouraged to work for an agency or office of the Federal Government involved in national security affairs or national security policy upon completion of their education; and
v. Which foreign languages are critical to the national security interests of the United States for purposes of 50 U.S.C. 1902(a)(1)(D) (relating to grants for the National Flagship Language Initiative) and 50 U.S.C. 1902(a)(1)(E) (relating to the scholarship program for advanced English language studies by heritage community citizens).
e. Encourage application for fellowships from graduate students having an educational background in any academic discipline, particularly in the area of science or technology.
f. Provide the Secretary of Defense biennially with a list of scholarship recipients and fellowship recipients, including an assessment of their foreign area and language skills, who are available to work in a national security position.
g. Not later than 30 days after a scholarship or fellowship recipient completes the study or education for which assistance was provided under the program, provide the Secretary of Defense with a report fully describing the foreign area and language skills obtained by the recipient as a result of the assistance.
h. Review the administration of the National Security Scholarships, Fellowships, and Grants Program.
The Board shall report to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1906, shall submit to the President and to the congressional intelligence committees an annual report of the conduct of the National Security Scholarships, Fellowships and Grants Program, which contains, at a minimum, the contents outlined in 50 U.S.C. 1906(b). In preparation of this annual report, the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the members of the Board, who shall each submit to the Secretary, as a minimum, an assessment of hiring needs in the areas of language and area studies, and a projection of the deficiencies in such areas. The Secretary
The Department of Defense (DoD), through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), shall provide support as deemed necessary for the Board's performance, and shall ensure compliance with the requirements of FACA, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) (“the Sunshine Act”), governing Federal statutes and regulations, and established DoD policies and procedures.
Under the provisions of 50 U.S.C 1903(b), the Board shall be composed of 14 members:
a. The following individuals or the representatives of such individuals:
I. The Secretary of Defense, who shall serve as the Chairman of the Board.
II. The Secretary of Education.
III. The Secretary of State.
IV. The Secretary of Commerce.
V. The Secretary of Homeland Security.
VI. The Secretary of Energy.
VII. The Director of National Intelligence.
VIII. The Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
b. Six individuals appointed by the President, who shall be experts in the fields of international, language, area, and counter-proliferation studies education and who may not be officers or employees of the Federal Government.
Members of the Board appointed by the President shall be appointed for a period specified by the President at the time of their appointment, but not to exceed four years.
Consistent with 50 U.S.C. 1903, the Secretary of Defense designates the USD(P&R) as the Chairperson of the Board. If the USD(P&R) is unavailable to chair a specific session of the Board, then the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management shall perform the functions of the Chairperson of the Board while the USD(P&R) is unavailable. The authority to chair the Board may not be further delegated.
Members of the Board who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal employees shall be appointed as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109 and serve as special Government employee (SGE) members. Each member of the Board is appointed to provide advice to the Government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
Pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1903(c), individuals appointed by the President shall receive no compensation for service on the Board. All members of the Board shall receive per diem and travel for official travel relating to the Board.
DoD, when necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task groups, and working groups to support the Board. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the USD(P&R). Such subcommittees shall not work independently of the Board, and shall report all of their recommendations and advice to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally, or in writing, on behalf of the Board; nor can any subcommittee or its members update or report directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees.
The Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of Defense may approve the appointment of subcommittee members for one-to-four year terms of service with annual renewals; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service. These individuals may come from the parent committee or may be new nominees, as recommended by the USD(P&R) and based upon the subject matters under consideration.
Subcommittee members, if not full-time or part-time Government employees, shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and shall serve as SGEs, whose appointments must be renewed by the Secretary of Defense on an annual basis. With the exception of travel and per diem for official travel related to the Board or its subcommittee, subcommittee members shall serve without compensation.
Each subcommittee member is appointed to provide advice to the Government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view an in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
All subcommittees operate under the provisions of FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and governing DoD policies and procedures.
The Board shall meet at the call of the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO), in consultation with Board's Chairperson. The estimated number of meetings is three per year.
The Board's DFO is required to be in attendance at all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees for the entire duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the Board's DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the Board according to DoD policies and procedures, shall attend the entire duration of all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees.
The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, shall call all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees; prepare and approve all meeting agendas; and adjourn any meeting when the DFO or Alternate DFO determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies and procedures.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the National Security Education Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of National Security Education Board.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the National Security Education Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the National Security Education Board's DFO can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
The DFO, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the National Security Education Board. The DFO, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
DoD.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2113a, as amended, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5
The Board is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee that shall assist the Secretary of Defense in an advisory capacity in carrying out the Secretary's responsibility to conduct the business of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (“the University”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The Board shall provide advice and recommendations on academic and administrative matters critical to the full accreditation and successful operation of the University.
The Board shall report to the Secretary of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)). The USD(P&R) may act upon the Board's advice and recommendations.
The Department of Defense (DoD), through the University, shall provide support, as deemed necessary, for the Board's performance, and shall ensure compliance with the requirement of FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and established policies and procedures.
Additional information and assistance, as required and approved by the Department, may be obtained from other DoD components with contracting authority and support contractors, including DoD Federally Funded Research and Development Centers for studies and analysis support.
The Board, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2113a, shall be composed of no more than 15 members, appointed as specified below:
a. Nine persons outstanding in the field of health care, higher education administration, or public policy shall be appointed from civilian life by the Secretary of Defense;
b. The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, who shall be an ex officio member;
c. The surgeons general of the Uniformed Services, who shall be ex officio members; and
d. The president of the University, who shall be a non-voting ex officio member.
The terms of office for each member of the Board (other than ex officio members), shall be six years except that:
a. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term; and
b. Any member whose term of office has expired shall continue to serve until his successor is appointed.
One of the appointed members of the Board shall be designated as Chairman by the Secretary of Defense and shall be presiding officer of the Board.
Board members that are not ex officio members shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense and their appointments will be renewed on an annual basis according to DoD policies and procedures. Members of the Board who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal employees shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. § 3109 and serve as special government employee (SGE) members. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2113a(c) and (e), these SGEs shall serve a term of service of six years and shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary of Defense, in addition to travel expenses and per diem while serving away from their place of residence.
Each member of the Board is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
The Department, when necessary, and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task groups, and working groups to support the Board. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense or the USD(P&R). Such subcommittees shall not work independently of the Board, and shall report all their recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board; nor can any subcommittee or its members update or report directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees.
The Secretary of Defense shall appoint subcommittee members even if the member in question is already a Board member. Subcommittee members, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, may serve a term of service on the subcommittee of one-to-four years; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service.
Subcommittee members, if not full-time or part-time Government employees, shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. § 3109, and shall serve as a SGE member, whose appointments must be renewed by the Secretary of Defense on an annual basis. With the exception of travel and per diem for official travel related to the Board or its subcommittees, subcommittee members shall serve without compensation.
Each subcommittee member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
All subcommittees operate under the provisions of FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and governing DoD policies and procedures. The Board shall meet at the call of the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO), in consultation with Board's Chairperson. The estimated number of meetings by the Board is four per year.
In addition, the Board's DFO is required to be in attendance at all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees for the entire duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the Board's DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the Board according to DoD policies and procedures, shall attend the entire duration of meetings of the Board or subcommittees.
The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, shall call all of the Board and its subcommittees; prepare and approve all meeting agendas; and adjourn any meeting, when the DFO, or the Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies and procedures; and chair meetings when directed to do so by the USD(P&R). Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences' DFO can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.
The DFO, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. The DFO, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e), and 37 CFR 404.7 (a)(1)(i) and 37 CFR 404.7 (b)(1)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, revocable license to the invention claimed in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/525,574, filed September 22, 2006, entitled “Antibodies with Simultaneous Subsite Specificities to Protein and Lipid Epitopes,” to Avanti Polar Lipids with its principal place of business at 700 Industrial Park Drive, Alabaster, AL 35007.
Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5012.
For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Applications, (301) 619-6664. For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808; both at telefax (301) 619-5034.
Anyone wishing to object to grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of meeting.
DoD is hosting a public meeting to obtain the views of experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector regarding the profit guidelines in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.
March 20, 2013, from 1:00 p.m.to 3:00 p.m., EST.
The public meeting will be held at General Services Administration (GSA), Central Office Auditorium, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. The GSA auditorium is located on the main floor of the building.
Ms. Patricia Foley, CPIC/DPAP, at 703-693-1145. Please cite NDAA FY 2013 Profit Policy Public Meeting.
DoD is interested in opening a dialogue with experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector about the requirements of section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. Section 804, Department of Defense Policy on Contractor Profits, included a requirement for DoD to review its profit policy guidelines in order to identify any modifications to such guidelines that are necessary to ensure an appropriate link between contractor profit and contractor performance. The law also stated that, in conducting the review, the Secretary shall obtain the views of experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector.
Those planning to attend the meeting must FAX the following information to CPIC/DPAP, 703-614-1254, or email to
• Company or organization name.
• Names of persons attending and applicable resumes summarizing expertise in this area.
• Identify if desiring to make a presentation; limit to a 10-minute presentation per company or organization.
• Last four digits of the social security number for anyone who is not a Federal Government employee with a Government badge, in order to create an attendee list for secure entry to the GSA building.
• Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 30 minutes early to accommodate security procedures.
If you wish to make a presentation, please contact Ms. Patricia Foley, and submit a copy of your presentation 5 days prior to the meeting date, to CPIC/DPAP, 3060 Pentagon, Room 5E621, Attn: Patricia Foley, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone: 703-693-1145. Submit electronic materials via email to
The TTY number for further information is: 1-800-877-8339. When the operator answers the call, let them know the agency is the Department of Defense; the point-of-contact is Patricia Foley at 703-693-1145.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of intent.
The Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
On July 8 2005, the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision for the Major Rehabilitation actions proposed for Reach One of the HHD. Several additional EISs and Environmental Assessments (EAs) have been completed for Reach One of the HHD, including installation of a seepage cutoff wall. The EISs for Reach 1A, Reach 1B, 1C, and 1D, and Reaches 2 and 3 have been retracted by notice in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Division, Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019.
Ms. Angela Dunn at (904) 232-2108 or email at
Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 18, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The Scholarships and Opportunities for Results (SOAR) Act H.R. 1473 (Pub. L.112-10), signed into law on April 15, 2011, reauthorized the DC School Choice Incentive Act and provided for
The reauthorization once again stipulated that an evaluation of the program be conducted “using the strongest possible research design for determining the effectiveness” of the program. ED awarded a contract to Westat, and its research partners, Pemberton Research and the University of California at San Diego to: (1) provide technical assistance to the program operator, particularly with respect to the design and conduct of the lotteries of applicants, and (2) conduct an evaluation of the impacts of the program.
The foundation of the evaluation will be a randomized control trial (RCT) comparing outcomes of eligible applicants (students and their parents) assigned by lottery to receive or not receive a scholarship. This design is consistent with the requirement for a rigorous evaluation as well as the need to fairly allocate the scholarships if the program is oversubscribed. Because the law also specified other kinds of comparisons and analyses, the planned evaluation study includes both quantitative and qualitative components.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 18, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 16, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a live open meeting of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
March 12, 2013, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
March 13, 2013, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Double Tree by Hilton Hotel Washington, DC—Crystal City (in the Jefferson Room), 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
Gil Sperling, STEAB's Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection, FERC-592 (Standards of Conduct for Transmission Provider; and Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the
Comments on the collection of information are due by March 18, 2013.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0157, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC13-1-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Respondents maintain and provide the information required by Part 358 on their internet Web sites. When the Commission requires a pipeline to post information on its Web site following a disclosure of non-public information to its marketing affiliate, non-affiliated shippers obtain comparable access to the non-public transportation information, which allows them to compete with marketing affiliates on a more equal basis.
This form (log/format) provides the electronic formats for maintaining information on discounted transportation transactions and capacity allocation to support monitoring of activities of interstate pipeline marketing affiliates. Commission staff considers discounts given to shippers in litigated rate cases.
Without this information collection:
• The Commission would be unable to effectively monitor whether pipelines are giving discriminatory preference to their marketing affiliates; and
• Non-affiliated shippers and state commissions and others would be unable to determine if they have been harmed by affiliate preference or prepare evidence for proceedings following the filing of a complaint.
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $684,092 [9,913 hours ÷ 2080
Take notice that during the month of January 2013, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).
Take notice that the following hydroelectric proceeding has been initiated by the Commission:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. Please file your submittal electronically via the Internet (eFiling) in lieu of paper. Please refer to the instructions on the Commission's Web site under
j.
k.
The most recent correspondence received from this licensee, was a Joint Offer of Settlement, dated July 22, 2005. The correspondence stated that the licensee had disconnected all electrical generating equipment from the power grid and made reasonable efforts to secure the site. The Commission did not act on the filing due to the inability to resolve issues associated with terminating the license. Since then, Commission staff inspected the project in August 2006 and again in September 2009. A project representative was not present during the inspections, and the project was locked and appeared abandoned.
l. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
On January 31, 2013, North Country Community College Foundation, Inc. (transferor) and Chasm Hydro, Inc. (transferee) filed an application for the transfer of license for the Ballard Mill Project (FERC No. 3267), located on the Salmon River in Franklin County, New York.
Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Ballard Mill Project from the transferor to the transferee.
On January 29, 2013, Western Refining Pipeline Company (Western) filed a Request for Temporary Waiver of the Tariff Filing and Reporting Requirements under sections 6 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act and related Commission regulations (18 CFR parts 341 and 357 (2012). Western plans to construct and operate new pipeline facilities for the transportation of crude oil from tankage facilities located in Lea and Eddy Counties, New Mexico (New Mexico Facilities) to downstream markets.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “RadNet (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 0877.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0015) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2013.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0041 referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to a-and-r-Docket and Information Center, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Charles M. Petko, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL), 540 South Morris Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36115-2601. Tel: 334-270-3411; fax number: 334-270-3454; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another
T
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
The EPA is announcing the availability of a final document titled, “Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants” (EPA/600/R-10/076F). The document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment within EPA's Office of Research and Development as part of the review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone.
The document will be available on February 15, 2013.
The “Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants” will be made available primarily through the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at
For technical information, contact Dr. James Brown, NCEA; telephone: 919-541-0765; facsimile: 919-541-1818; or email:
Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to identify certain pollutants which, among other things, “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” and to issue air quality criteria for them. These air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air * * *. ” Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish NAAQS for each pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria. Section 109(d) of the Act subsequently requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. EPA is also to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS, based on the revised air quality criteria.
Ozone (O
On September 29, 2008 (73 FR 56581), EPA formally initiated its current review of the air quality criteria for ozone, requesting the submission of recent scientific information on specified topics. A draft of EPA's ”Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Review” (EPA/452/P-09/001) was made available in September 2009 for public comment and was discussed by the CASAC Ozone Review Panel (CASAC panel) via a publicly accessible teleconference consultation on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 54562). In August 2010, EPA held a workshop to discuss, with invited scientific experts, initial draft materials prepared in the development of the ISA (75 FR 42085). The first external review draft ISA for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants was released on March 4, 2011 (
The third external review draft ISA for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants was released on June 19, 2012 (
EPA has considered comments by the CASAC panel and by the public in preparing this final ISA.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received a specific exemption request from the Michigan Department of Agriculture to use the pesticide kasugamycin (CAS No. 6980-18-3) to treat up to 10,000 acres of apples to control fire blight. The applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been registered by EPA. EPA is soliciting public comment before making the decision whether or not to grant the exemption.
Comments must be received on or before March 4, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0067, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Keri Grinstead, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8373; fax number: (703) 605-0781; 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).
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.
3.
Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. Michigan Department of Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of kasugamycin on apples to control fire blight. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.
As part of this request, the applicant asserts that kasugamycin is needed to control streptomycin-resistant strains of
The applicant proposes to make no more than three applications of Kasumin 2L on not more that 10,000 acres of apples between April 1 and May 31, 2013, in Antrim, Berrien, Cass, Grand Traverse, Ionia, Kent, Leelanau, Montcalm, Newaygo, Oceana, Ottawa, and Van Buren counties. As currently proposed, the maximum amount of product to be applied would be 30,000 gallons.
This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 requires publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing use of a new chemical (i.e., an active ingredient) which has not been registered by EPA. The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application. The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the Michigan Department of Agriculture.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
This notice announces the broadly applicable alternative test method approval decisions the EPA has made under and in support of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 2012.
An electronic copy of each alternative test method approval document is available on the EPA's Web site at
This notice will be of interest to entities regulated under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 60, 61, and 63, state, local, and tribal agencies, and the EPA Regional Offices responsible for implementation and enforcement of regulations under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63.
You may access copies of the broadly applicable alternative test method approval documents from the EPA's Web site at
Broadly applicable alternative test method approval decisions made by the EPA in 2012 under the NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP, and 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 are identified in this notice (see Table 1). Source owners and operators may voluntarily use these broadly applicable alternative test methods subject to their specific applicability. Use of these broadly applicable alternative test methods does not change the applicable emission standards.
As explained in a previous
It is important to clarify that alternative methods are not mandatory but permissive. Sources are not required to employ such a method but may choose to do so in appropriate cases. Source owners or operators should review the specific broadly applicable alternative method approval decision on the EPA's Web site at
The criteria for approval and procedures for submission and review of broadly applicable alternative test methods are outlined at 72 FR 4257 (January 30, 2007). We will continue to announce approvals for broadly applicable alternative test methods on the EPA's Web site at
This notice comprises a summary of seven such approval documents added to our Technology Transfer Network from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. The alternative method decision letter/memo number, the reference method affected, sources allowed to use this alternative, and the modification or alternative method allowed are summarized in Table 1 of this notice. Please refer to the complete copies of these approval documents available from the EPA's Web site at
If you are aware of reasons why a particular alternative test method approval that we issued should not be broadly applicable, we request that you make us aware of the reasons in writing, and we will revisit the broad approval. Any objection to a broadly applicable alternative test method, as well as the resolution of that objection, will be announced on the EPA's Web site at
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Notice of Information Collection—Revised: Demographic Information on Applicants for Federal Employment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission or EEOC) announces that it intends to revise a Commission form (Demographic Information on Applicants, OMB No. 3046-0046) to include disability status data.
Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before April 16, 2013.
Comments should be sent to the Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Instead of sending written comments to the EEOC, you may submit comments and attachments electronically at
Barbara Dougherty, Federal Sector Programs, Office of Federal Operations, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663-4770 (voice); (202) 663-4593 (TTY).
On July 26, 2010, President Obama issued Executive Order 13548, which directs Executive departments and agencies (hereafter “agencies”) to improve their efforts to employ Federal workers with disabilities through increased recruitment, hiring, and retention of these individuals. OPM, in consultation with the White House (including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)), the Department of Labor (DOL), and the EEOC has developed, as required by the EO 13548, model recruitment and hiring strategies for agencies to use to increase their employment of individuals with disabilities. (
This Notice concerns revising the form (OMB No. 3046-0046) for the use by federal agencies in gathering data on the race, ethnicity, and sex of job applicants. This form is used by EEOC and other agencies to gauge progress and trends over time with respect to equal employment opportunity goals. The revision would add disability status of applicants to the collection, thereby allowing the agencies and EEOC to track progress toward meeting the recruitment and hiring strategies developed pursuant to EO 13548. The race and ethnicity categories in this form are consistent with the standards set by the Office of Management and Budget .
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment on revising its form for use by federal agencies in gathering demographic information on applicants for federal employment. Comments are particularly invited on whether this collection of information will enable the Commission and federal agencies to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed data collection tool will have practical utility by enabling a federal agency to determine whether recruitment activities are effectively reaching all segments of the relevant labor pool in compliance with the laws enforced by the Commission and whether the agency's selection procedures allow all applicants to compete on a level playing field regardless of race, national origin, sex or disability status;
(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 applicants for federal employees who choose 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.
Several federal agencies (or components of such agencies) have previously obtained separate OMB approval for the use of forms collecting data on the race, national origin, sex, and disability status of applicants. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and a proliferation of forms, the EEOC seeks approval for the use of a common form to be used by all federal agencies.
Response by applicants is optional. The information obtained will be used by federal agencies only for evaluating whether an agency's recruitment activities are effectively reaching all segments of the relevant labor pool, to gauge progress and trends over time with respect to equal opportunity goals, and to track progress toward meeting the recruitment and hiring strategies developed pursuant to EO 13548. The voluntary responses are treated in a highly confidential and anonymous manner, are not shared with those involved in the selection process or the supervisor (if the person is hired) and will not be placed in the employees' personnel file. The information is not provided to any panel rating the applications, to selecting officials, to anyone who can affect the application or to the public. Rather, the information is used in summary form to determine trends over many selections within a given occupational or organization area. No information from the form is entered into an official personnel file.
Once OMB approves the use of this common form, federal agencies may request OMB approval to use this common form without having to publish notices and request public comments for 60 and 30 days. Each agency must account for the burden associated with their use of the common form.
For the Commission.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
Commission Meeting Room on the First Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 131 “M” Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507.
Part of the meeting will be open to the public and part of the meeting will be closed.
1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
2. Report on Implementation of the EEOC's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016.
Review of select pending charges, investigations, conciliations, litigation strategy, and federal sector matters including adjudications and appeals.
NOTE: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the open session of the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. The remainder of the meeting will be closed. Any matter not discussed or concluded may be carried over to a later meeting. For the open session, seating is limited and it is suggested that visitors arrive 30 minutes before the meeting in order to be processed through security and escorted to the meeting room. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the
Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation and Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) services at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above.
Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4077.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces the auction of certain Paging Bands licenses scheduled to commence on July 16, 2013. This document also seeks comment on competitive bidding procedures for Auction 95.
Comments are due on or before February 22, 2013, and reply comments are due on or before March 14, 2013.
All filings in response to this public notice must refer to AU Docket No. 13-12. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau strongly encourages interested parties to file comments electronically, and request that an additional copy of all comments and reply comments be submitted electronically to the following address:
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email:
This is a summary of the
1. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) announces an auction of 5,905 paging licenses to commence on July 16, 2013, and is designated as Auction 95.) The Bureau seeks comment on the procedures to be used for this auction. The licenses available in Auction 95 consist of 4,902 licenses in the lower paging bands (35-36 MHz, 43-44 MHz, 152-159 MHz, 454-460 MHz) and 1,003 licenses in the upper paging bands (929-931 MHz).
2. Auction 95 will offer licenses that remained unsold from previous auctions, licenses on which a winning bidder in a previous auction defaulted, and licenses for spectrum previously associated with licenses that cancelled or terminated. In a few cases, the available license does not cover the entire geographic area due to an excluded area or previous partitioning.
3. Attachment A to the
4. The Commission has concluded that the lower band licenses should be awarded in each of the 175 geographic areas known as Economic Areas (EAs), and the upper bands licenses should be awarded in each of the 51 geographic areas known as Major Economic Areas (MEAs). These EAs and MEAs encompass the United States, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
5. Tables containing the block/frequency cross-reference list for the paging bands are included in Attachment B to the
6. There are pre-existing paging incumbent licenses. Incumbent (non-geographic) paging licensees operating under their existing authorizations are entitled to full protection from co-channel interference. Geographic area licensees are likewise afforded co-channel interference protection from incumbent licensees. Geographic area licensees are obligated to resolve possible interference concerns of adjacent geographic area licensees by negotiating a mutually acceptable agreement with the neighboring geographic licensee.
7. Each potential bidder is solely responsible for investigating and evaluating all technical and marketplace factors that may have a bearing on the value of the licenses that it is seeking in this auction. Each bidder is responsible for assuring that, if it wins a license, it will be able to build and operate facilities in accordance with the Commission's rules. The FCC makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services. Each applicant should be aware that an FCC auction represents an opportunity to become an FCC licensee in the paging service, subject to certain conditions and regulations. An FCC auction does not constitute an endorsement by the FCC of any particular service, technology, or product, nor does an FCC license constitute a guarantee of business success.
8. An applicant should perform its due diligence research and analysis before proceeding, as it would with any new business venture. Each potential bidder should perform technical analyses and/or refresh any previous analyses to assure itself that, should it become a winning bidder for any Auction 95 license, it will be able to build and operate facilities that will fully comply with all applicable technical and legal requirements. The Bureau strongly encourages each applicant to inspect any prospective transmitter sites located in, or near, the geographic area for which it plans to bid; confirm the availability of such sites; and familiarize itself with the Commission's rules regarding the National Environmental Policy Act.
9. The Bureau strongly encourages each applicant to conduct its own research prior to Auction 95 in order to determine the existence of pending administrative, rulemaking, or judicial proceedings that might affect its decisions regarding participation in the auction.
10. The Bureau strongly encourages participants in Auction 95 to continue such research throughout the auction. The due diligence considerations mentioned in the
11. The Commission directed the Bureau, under delegated authority, to seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures prior to the start of each auction. Therefore the Bureau seeks comment on the following issues relating to the conduct of Auction 95.
12. The Bureau proposes to auction all licenses included in Auction 95 using the Commission's standard simultaneous multiple-round auction format. This type of auction offers every license for bid at the same time and consists of successive bidding rounds in which eligible bidders may place bids on individual licenses. Typically, bidding remains open on all licenses until bidding stops on every license. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
13. In several prior auctions the Commission has adopted procedures to limit the disclosure of certain bidder-specific information until after the auction. Consistent with that practice, the Bureau proposes to conduct Auction 95 using certain procedures for limited information disclosure or anonymous bidding. Specifically, the Bureau proposes to withhold, until after the close of bidding, public release of (1) bidders' license selections on their short-form applications (FCC Form 175), (2) the amounts of bidders' upfront payments and bidding eligibility, and (3) information that may reveal the identities of bidders placing bids and taking other bidding-related actions.
14. Under these proposed limited information procedures, the amount of every bid placed and whether a bid was withdrawn would be disclosed after the close of every round, but the identities of bidders placing specific bids or withdrawals and the net bid amounts would not be disclosed until after the close of the auction.
15. Bidders would have access to additional information about their own bids. For example, bidders would be able to view their own level of eligibility, before and during the auction, through the Commission's Integrated Spectrum Auction System (ISAS or FCC Auction System).
16. Moreover, for the purpose of complying with 47 CFR 1.2105(c) prohibiting certain communications between applicants (formerly referred to as the anti-collusion rule), applicants would be made aware of other applicants with which they will not be permitted to cooperate, collaborate, or communicate, including discussing bids, bidding strategies, or post-auction market structure. Specifically, the Bureau would notify separately each applicant in Auction 95 whether applicants with short-form applications to participate in pending auctions, including but not limited to Auction 95, have applied for licenses in any of the same or overlapping geographic areas as that applicant.
17. After the close of bidding, bidders' license selections, upfront payment amounts, bidding eligibility, bids, and other bidding-related actions would be made publicly available.
18. The Bureau seeks comments on its proposal to implement anonymous bidding in Auction 95. The Bureau also seeks comment on alternatives to the use of anonymous bidding procedures for Auction 95. When the Commission first proposed limited information disclosure procedures, it did so in response to analysis suggesting that under certain circumstances the competitiveness and economic efficiency of a simultaneous multiple-round auction may be enhanced if such information is withheld until after the close of the auction. The Bureau encourages parties to provide information about the benefits and costs of complying with limited information procedures as compared with the benefits and costs of alternative procedures that would provide for the disclosure of more information on bidder identities and interests in the auction. If commenters believe that the Bureau should not adopt procedures to limit the disclosure of certain bidder-specific information until after the auction, they should explain their reasoning.
19. Auction 95 will consist of sequential bidding rounds. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice to be released at least one week before the start of the auction.
20. The Commission will conduct Auction 95 over the Internet using the Commission's Integrated Spectrum Auction System (FCC Auction System). Bidders will also have the option of placing bids by telephone through a dedicated Auction Bidder Line. The toll-free telephone number for the Auction Bidder Line will be provided to qualified bidders prior to the start of the auction.
21. The Bureau proposes to retain the discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. Under this proposal, the Bureau may change the amount of time for bidding rounds, the amount of time between rounds, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon bidding activity and other factors. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal. Commenters on this issue should address the role of the bidding schedule in managing the pace of the auction, specifically discussing the tradeoffs in managing auction pace by bidding schedule changes, by changing the activity requirements or bid amount parameters, or by using other means.
22. The Bureau has discretion to establish stopping rules before or during multiple round auctions in order to complete the auction within a reasonable time. For Auction 95, the Bureau proposes to employ a simultaneous stopping rule approach, which means all licenses remain available for bidding until bidding stops on every license. More specifically, bidding will close on all licenses after the first round in which no bidder submits any new bids, applies a proactive waiver, or withdraws any provisionally winning bids. Thus, unless the Bureau announces alternative procedures, the simultaneous stopping rule will be used in this auction, and bidding will remain open on all licenses until bidding stops on every license. Consequently, it is not possible to determine in advance how long the bidding in this auction will last.
23. Further, the Bureau proposes to retain the discretion to exercise any of the following options during Auction 95: (a) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction for all licenses after the first round in which no bidder applies a waiver, withdraws a provisionally winning bid, or places any new bids on a license for which it is not the provisionally winning bidder. Thus, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a license for which it is the provisionally winning bidder would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule; (b) Use a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule that would close the auction for all licenses after the first round in which no bidder applies a waiver, withdraws a provisionally winning bid, or places any new bids on a license that is not FCC
24. The Bureau proposes to exercise these options only in certain circumstances, for example, where the auction is proceeding unusually slowly or quickly, there is minimal overall bidding activity, or it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time or will close prematurely. Before exercising these options, the Bureau is likely to attempt to change the pace of the auction. For example, the Bureau may adjust the pace of bidding by changing the number of bidding rounds per day and/or the minimum acceptable bids. The Bureau proposes to retain the discretion to exercise any of these options with or without prior announcement during the auction. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.
25. For Auction 95, the Bureau proposes that it may delay, suspend, or cancel the auction in the event of a natural disaster, technical obstacle, administrative or weather necessity, evidence of an auction security breach or unlawful bidding activity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and efficient conduct of competitive bidding. The Bureau will notify participants of any such delay, suspension or cancellation by public notice and/or through the FCC Auction System's announcement function. If the auction is delayed or suspended, the Bureau may, in its sole discretion, elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round or from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureaus to delay or suspend the auction. The Bureau emphasize that it will exercise this authority solely at its discretion, and not as a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
26. The Bureau has delegated authority and discretion to determine an appropriate upfront payment for each license being auctioned, taking into account such factors as the efficiency of the auction process and the potential value of similar licenses. The upfront payment is a refundable deposit made by each bidder to establish eligibility to bid on licenses. Upfront payments that are related to the specific licenses being auctioned protect against frivolous or insincere bidding and provide the Commission with a source of funds from which to collect payments owed at the close of the auction. For Auction 95, the proposed upfront payments are equal to the proposed minimum opening bids. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
27. The Bureau further proposes that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine its initial bidding eligibility in bidding units. The Bureau proposes to assign each license a specific number of bidding units, equal to one bidding unit per dollar of the upfront payment listed for the license. The specific bidding units for each license are set forth in the complete list of licenses available for Auction 95, available as separate Attachment A files at
28. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively throughout the auction, rather than wait until late in the auction before participating. A bidder's activity in a round will be the sum of the bidding units associated with any licenses upon which it places bids during the current round and the bidding units associated with any licenses for which it holds provisionally winning bids placed in previous rounds. Bidders are required to be active on a specific percentage of their current bidding eligibility during each round of the auction. Failure to maintain the requisite activity level will result in the use of an activity rule waiver, if any remain, or a reduction in the bidder's eligibility, possibly curtailing or eliminating the bidder's ability to place additional bids in the auction.
29. The Bureau proposes to divide the auction into at least two stages, each characterized by a different activity requirement. The auction will start in Stage One. The Bureau proposes to advance the auction to the next stage by announcement during the auction. In exercising this discretion, the Bureau will consider a variety of measures of auction activity, including but not limited to the percentage of licenses (as measured in bidding units) on which there are new bids, the number of new bids, and the increase in revenue. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.
30. The Bureau proposes the following activity requirements, while noting again that the Bureau retains the discretion to change stages unilaterally by announcement during the auction: Stage One: In each round of the first stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current bidding eligibility is required to be active on licenses representing at least 80 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in the use of an activity rule waiver or a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility for the next round of bidding. During Stage One, a bidder's reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current round activity by five-fourths (
31. The Bureau requests comment on these activity requirements. Under this proposal, the Bureau will retain the discretion to change the activity requirements during the auction. For example, the Bureau could decide to add an additional stage with a higher activity requirement, not to transition to Stage Two if it believes the auction is progressing satisfactorily under the Stage One activity requirement, or to transition to Stage Two with an activity requirement that is higher or lower than the 95 percent proposed herein. If the Bureau exercises this discretion, it will alert bidders by announcement in the FCC Auction System.
32. When a bidder's eligibility in the current round is below the required minimum level, it may preserve its current level of eligibility through an activity rule waiver. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding, not to a particular license. Activity rule waivers, which can be either proactive or automatic, are principally a mechanism for a bidder to avoid the loss of bidding eligibility in the event that exigent circumstances prevent it from bidding in a particular round.
33. The FCC Auction System assumes that a bidder that does not meet the activity requirement would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver at the end of any bidding round in which a bidder's activity level is below the minimum required unless (1) the bidder has no activity rule waivers remaining; or (2) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the activity requirement. If a bidder has no waivers remaining and does not satisfy the required activity level, the bidder's current eligibility will be permanently reduced, possibly curtailing or eliminating the ability to place additional bids in the auction.
34. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding round by using the reduce eligibility function in the FCC Auction System. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring it into compliance with the activity rule. Reducing eligibility is an irreversible action; once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility, even if the round has not yet closed.
35. Under the proposed simultaneous stopping rule, a bidder may apply an activity rule waiver proactively as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder proactively applies an activity rule waiver (using the apply waiver function in the FCC Auction System) during a bidding round in which no bids are placed or withdrawn, the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. An automatic waiver applied by the FCC Auction System in a round in which there are no new bids, withdrawals, or proactive waivers will not keep the auction open. A bidder cannot apply a proactive waiver after bidding in a round, and applying a proactive waiver will preclude it from placing any bids in that round. Applying a waiver is irreversible; once a proactive waiver is submitted, it cannot be unsubmitted, even if the round has not yet closed.
36. Consistent with recent FCC auctions, the Bureau proposes that each bidder in Auction 95 be provided with three activity rule waivers that may be used at the bidder's discretion during the course of the auction. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
37. The Commission has directed the Bureau to seek comment on the use of a minimum opening bid amount and/or reserve price prior to the start of each auction.
38. Normally, a reserve price is an absolute minimum price below which an item will not be sold in a given auction. A minimum opening bid, on the other hand, is the minimum bid price set at the beginning of the auction below which no bids are accepted. It is generally used to accelerate the competitive bidding process. It is possible for the minimum opening bid and the reserve price to be the same amount.
39. The Bureau proposes to establish minimum opening bid amounts for Auction 95. The Bureau believes that a minimum opening bid amount, which has been used in other auctions, is an effective bidding tool for accelerating the competitive bidding process. The Bureau does not propose to establish separate reserve prices for the licenses to be offered in Auction 95.
40. As the Bureau did for the last auction of paging licenses, Auction 87, the Bureau proposes to set the minimum opening bid for each license available in Auction 95 at $500. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
41. If commenters believe that these minimum opening bid amounts will result in unsold licenses, are not reasonable amounts, or should instead operate as reserve prices, they should explain why this is so and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. If requesting a lower minimum opening bid amount for a specific license offered in this auction, a commenter should justify the requested amount in detail. The Bureaus asks commenters to support their claims with valuation analyses and suggested amounts or formulas for reserve prices or minimum opening bids. In establishing minimum opening bid amounts, the Bureau particularly seeks comment on factors that could reasonably have an impact on valuation of the spectrum being auctioned, including levels of incumbency within these spectrum bands, the availability of technology to provide service, the size of the geographic service areas, issues of interference with other spectrum bands, and any other relevant factors. The Bureau has not attempted to adjust minimum opening bid amounts for licenses based on precise levels of incumbency within particular geographic areas, and has instead proposed low minimum opening bid amounts that are intended to reflect overall incumbency levels. The Bureau seeks comment on this approach, on whether the public interest would be served by having no minimum opening bid amount or reserve price.
42. The Bureau proposes that, in each round, an eligible bidder will be able to place a bid on a given license using one or more pre-defined bid amounts. Under this proposal, the FCC Auction System interface will list the acceptable bid amounts for each license. The Bureau proposes to calculate bid amounts.
43. The first of the acceptable bid amounts is called the minimum acceptable bid amount. The minimum acceptable bid amount for a license will be equal to its minimum opening bid amount until there is a provisionally winning bid for the license. After there is a provisionally winning bid for a license, the minimum acceptable bid amount will be a certain percentage higher. That is, the FCC will calculate the minimum acceptable bid amount by multiplying the provisionally winning bid amount times one plus the
44. The FCC will calculate any additional bid amounts using the minimum acceptable bid amount and a bid increment percentage, which need not be the same as the percentage used to calculate the minimum acceptable bid amount. The first additional acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount times one plus the bid increment percentage, rounded. If, for example, the bid increment percentage is 5 percent, the calculation is (minimum acceptable bid amount) * (1 + 0.05), rounded, or (minimum acceptable bid amount) * 1.05, rounded; the second additional acceptable bid amount equals the minimum acceptable bid amount times one plus two times the bid increment percentage, rounded, or (minimum acceptable bid amount) * 1.10, rounded; etc. The Bureau will round the results using the Commission's standard rounding procedures for auctions. The Bureau proposes to use a bid increment percentage of 5 percent.
45. For Auction 95 the Bureau proposes to start with eight additional bid amounts (for a total of nine bid amounts). The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal. If commenters believe the Bureau should start with fewer or no additional bid amounts, they should address the issue of additional bid amounts in light of particular circumstances of Auction 95, including the nature of the license inventory.
46. The Bureau retains the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bid amounts, the minimum acceptable bid percentage, the bid increment percentage, and the number of acceptable bid amounts if the Bureau determines that circumstances so dictate. Further, the Bureau retains the discretion to do so on a license-by-license basis. The Bureau also retains the discretion to limit (a) the amount by which a minimum acceptable bid for a license may increase compared with the corresponding provisionally winning bid, and (b) the amount by which an additional bid amount may increase compared with the immediately preceding acceptable bid amount. For example, the Bureau could set a $10,000 limit on increases in minimum acceptable bid amounts over provisionally winning bids. Thus, if calculating a minimum acceptable bid using the minimum acceptable bid percentage results in a minimum acceptable bid amount that is $12,000 higher than the provisionally winning bid on a license, the minimum acceptable bid amount would instead be capped at $10,000 above the provisionally winning bid. The Bureau seeks comment on the circumstances under which the Bureau should employ such a limit, factors it should consider when determining the dollar amount of the limit, and the tradeoffs in setting such a limit or changing other parameters, such as changing the minimum acceptable bid percentage, the bid increment percentage, or the number of acceptable bid amounts. If the Bureau exercises this discretion, it will alert bidders by announcement in the FCC Auction System during the auction.
47. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals. Commenters may wish to address the role of the minimum acceptable bids and the number of acceptable bid amounts in managing the pace of the auction and the tradeoffs in managing auction pace by changing the bidding schedule, activity requirements, or bid amounts, or by using other means.
48. Provisionally winning bids are bids that would become final winning bids if the auction were to close in that given round. At the end of a bidding round, the FCC Auction System determines a provisionally winning bid for each license based on the highest bid amount received. If identical high bid amounts are submitted on a license in any given round (i.e., tied bids), the FCC Auction System will use a random number generator to select a single provisionally winning bid from among the tied bids. (The Auction System assigns a random number to each bid when the bid is entered. The tied bid with the highest random number wins the tiebreaker.) The remaining bidders, as well as the provisionally winning bidder, can submit higher bids in subsequent rounds. However, if the auction were to end with no other bids being placed, the winning bidder would be the one that placed the provisionally winning bid. If the license receives any bids in a subsequent round, the provisionally winning bid again will be determined by the highest bid amount received for the license.
49. A provisionally winning bid will remain the provisionally winning bid until there is a higher bid on the license at the close of a subsequent round, unless the provisionally winning bid is withdrawn. The Bureau reminds bidders that provisionally winning bids count toward activity for purposes of the activity rule.
50. For Auction 95, the Bureau proposes the following bid removal procedures. Before the close of a bidding round, a bidder has the option of removing any bid placed in that round. By removing a selected bid in the FCC Auction System, a bidder may effectively undo any bid placed within that round. In contrast to the bid withdrawal provisions, a bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to a withdrawal payment. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid. The Bureau seeks comment on this bid removal proposal.
51. The Bureau seeks comment on the following bid withdrawal procedures for Auction 95. When permitted in an auction, bid withdrawals provide a bidder with the option of withdrawing bids placed in prior rounds that have become provisionally winning bids. A bidder may withdraw its provisionally winning bids using the withdraw bids function in the FCC Auction System. A bidder that withdraws its provisionally winning bid(s), if permitted, is subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions of the Commission rules.
52. The Bureau has discretion in managing the auction to limit the number of withdrawals to prevent any bidding abuses. The Commission has stated that the Bureau should exercise its discretion, consider limiting the number of rounds in which bidders may withdraw bids, and prevent bidders from bidding on a particular market if the Bureau finds that a bidder is abusing the Commission's bid withdrawal procedures.
53. For Auction 95, the Bureau proposes to limit each bidder to withdrawing provisionally winning bids in only one round during the course of the auction. To permit a bidder to withdraw bids in more than one round may encourage insincere bidding or the
54. The Bureau seeks comment on the appropriate percentage of a withdrawn bid that should be assessed as an interim withdrawal payment in the event that a final withdrawal payment cannot be determined at the close of the auction. In general, the Commission's rules provide that a bidder that withdraws a bid during an auction is subject to a withdrawal payment equal to the difference between the amount of the withdrawn bid and the amount of the winning bid in the same or subsequent auction(s). If a bid is withdrawn and no subsequent higher bid is placed and/or the license is not won in the same auction, the final withdrawal payment cannot be calculated until after the close of a subsequent auction in which a higher bid for the license (or the equivalent to the license) is placed or the license is won. When that final payment cannot yet be calculated, the bidder responsible for the withdrawn bid is assessed an interim bid withdrawal payment, which will be applied toward any final bid withdrawal payment that is ultimately assessed. 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(1) requires that the percentage of the withdrawn bid to be assessed as an interim bid withdrawal payment be between three percent and twenty percent and that it be set in advance of the auction.
55. The Commission has determined that the level of the interim withdrawal payment in a particular auction will be based on the nature of the service and the inventory of the licenses being offered. The Commission has noted that it may impose a higher interim withdrawal payment percentage to deter the anti-competitive use of withdrawals when, for example, bidders likely will not need to aggregate the licenses being offered in the auction, such as when few licenses are offered that are on adjacent frequencies or in adjacent areas, or when there are few synergies to be captured by combining licenses. With respect to the licenses being offered in Auction 95, the service rules permit a variety of fixed, mobile, and paging services, though the opportunities for combining licenses on adjacent frequencies or in adjacent areas are more limited than has been the case in previous auctions of paging licenses. Balancing the potential need for bidders to use withdrawals to avoid winning incomplete combinations of licenses with the Bureau's interest in deterring undesirable strategic use of withdrawals, the Bureau proposes a percentage below the maximum twenty percent permitted under the current rules but above the three percent previously provided by the Commission's rules. Specifically, the Bureau proposes to establish an interim bid withdrawal payment of ten percent of the withdrawn bid for this auction. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
56. Any winning bidder that defaults or is disqualified after the close of an auction (i.e., fails to remit the required down payment within the prescribed period of time, fails to submit a timely long-form application, fails to make full and timely final payment, or is otherwise disqualified) is liable for a default payment under 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2). This payment consists of a deficiency payment, equal to the difference between the amount of the Auction 95 bidder's winning bid and the amount of the winning bid the next time a license covering the same spectrum is won in an auction, plus an additional payment equal to a percentage of the defaulter's bid or of the subsequent winning bid, whichever is less.
57. The Commission's rules provide that, in advance of each auction, it will establish a percentage between three percent and twenty percent of the applicable bid to be assessed as an additional default payment. As the Commission has indicated, the level of this additional payment in each auction will be based on the nature of the service and the licenses being offered.
58. For Auction 95, the Bureau proposes to establish an additional default payment of ten percent. Defaults weaken the integrity of the auction process and may impede the deployment of service to the public, and an additional ten percent default payment will be more effective in deterring defaults than the three percent used in some earlier auctions. At the same time, the Bureau does not believe the detrimental effects of any defaults in Auction 95 are likely to be unusually great. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.
59. This proceeding has been designated as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 5, 2013.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 15, 2013.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 5, 2013.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
Renee Chapman, Contact Representative, or Theresa Kingsberry, Legal Assistant, Federal Trade Commission, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau Of Competition, Room H-303, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3100.
By Direction of the Commission.
Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA.
Notice of request for an extension of a information collection requirement for an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the packing list clause. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before: March 18, 2013.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0246, Packing List Clause, by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0246, Packing List Clause”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0246, Packing List Clause” on your attached document.
•
•
Deborah Eble, Procurement Analyst, GSA Policy Integrity Workforce, by telephone (215) 446-5823 or via email at
GSAR clause 552.211-77, Packing List, requires a contractor to include a packing list or other suitable document that verifies placement of an order and identifies the items shipped. In addition to information contractors would normally include on packing lists, the identification of cardholder name, telephone number and the term “Credit Card” is required.
One respondent submitted comments on the extension of the previously approved information collection,
The purpose of the information collection is to facilitate administration of government credit card purchases. Often the government credit cardholder is different from the consignee receiving shipment of the supplies. Providing the additional information ensures the recipient of the packing list, the consignee, notifies the government credit cardholder that the shipment has been received. Once the notification of successful shipment has been received, the cardholder can then authorize payment. This feedback is essential for the cardholder to reconcile his/her monthly statements. This is especially important if the micropurchase threshold is raised to support a contingency operation declaration under FAR subpart 18.2. Not granting this extension would increase costs to the Government during the reconciliation process and may delay payments to contractors for shipments of supplies received.
Careful consideration went into assessing the burden for this collection. Packing lists accompanying shipments of supplies are customary in the normal course of business, including the information listed in paragraph (a) of clause 552.211-77. The public burden is limited to the annotation on the packing list the name and telephone number of the government credit cardholder and the phrase “Credit Card.”
While there is no centralized database for the collection of the packing lists in a fiscal year, the agency found the respondent's suggestion to use actual data reasonable to calculate the public burden. The annual reporting burden was revised, using actual data from the government-wide Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. Two types of actions were analyzed: GSA actions for supplies where the method of payment was made by government credit card; and, non-GSA actions for supplies where both payment was by a government credit card and a GSA indefinite delivery contract for supplies was referenced. Average costs were derived in order for the government to estimate the number of packing slips per order. Thus, an adjustment is made to the annual reporting burden after review of the methodology for computing the number of respondents and packing lists in a given year and the estimated hours per response.
The government agreed with the respondent that the time per response did not allow for review and transmission of the government credit cardholder's name and telephone number and the phrase “Credit Card” into its packing list system and adjusted the burden accordingly.
Members of the public may submit comments for further consideration and are encouraged to provide data to support their request for an adjustment.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This quarterly notice lists CMS manual instructions, substantive and interpretive regulations, and other
It is possible that an interested party may need specific information and not be able to determine from the listed information whether the issuance or regulation would fulfill that need.
Among other things, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs and coordination and oversight of private health insurance. Administration and oversight of these programs involves the following: (1) Furnishing information to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, health care providers, and the public; and (2) maintaining effective communications with CMS regional offices, state governments, state Medicaid agencies, state survey agencies, various providers of health care, all Medicare contractors that process claims and pay bills, National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), health insurers, and other stakeholders. To implement the various statutes on which the programs are based, we issue regulations under the authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections 1102, 1871, 1902, and related provisions of the Social Security Act (the Act) and Public Health Service Act. We also issue various manuals, memoranda, and statements necessary to administer and oversee the programs efficiently.
Section 1871(c) of the Act requires that we publish a list of all Medicare manual instructions, interpretive rules, statements of policy, and guidelines of general applicability not issued as regulations at least every 3 months in the
While we are publishing the quarterly notice required by section 1871(c) of the Act, we will no longer republish duplicative information that is available to the public elsewhere. We believe this approach is in alignment with CMS' commitment to the general principles of the President's Executive Order 13563 released January 2011 entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” which promotes modifying and streamlining an agency's regulatory program to be more effective in achieving regulatory objectives. Section 6 of Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to identify regulations that may be “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” This approach is also in alignment with the President's Open Government and Transparency Initiative that establishes a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.
Therefore, this quarterly notice provides only the specific updates that have occurred in the 3-month period along with a hyperlink to the full listing that is available on the CMS Web site or the appropriate data registries that are used as our resources. This information is the most current up-to-date information and will be available earlier than we publish our quarterly notice. We believe the Web site list provides more timely access for beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers. We also believe the Web site offers a more convenient tool for the public to find the full list of qualified providers for these specific services and offers more flexibility and “real time” accessibility. In addition, many of the Web sites have listservs; that is, the public can subscribe and receive immediate notification of any updates to the Web site. These listservs avoid the need to check the Web site, as notification of updates is automatic and sent to the subscriber as they occur. If assessing a Web site proves to be difficult, the contact person listed can provide information.
This notice is organized into 15 addenda so that a reader may access the subjects published during the quarter covered by the notice to determine whether any are of particular interest. We expect this notice to be used in concert with previously published notices. Those unfamiliar with a description of our Medicare manuals should view the manuals at
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance, Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program, and Program No. 93.714, Medical Assistance Program)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the dates, time, and location of the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) public meetings to be held in calendar year 2013 to discuss our preliminary coding and payment determinations for all new public requests for revisions to the HCPCS. These meetings provide a forum for interested parties to make oral presentations or to submit written comments in response to preliminary coding and payment determinations. The discussion will be focused on responses to our specific preliminary recommendations and will include all items on the public meeting agenda.
1. Wednesday, May 8, 2013, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., eastern daylight time (e.d.t.) (Drugs/Biologicals/Radiopharmaceuticals/Radiologic Imaging Agents).
2. Thursday, May 9, 2013, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.d.t. (Drugs/Biologicals/Radiopharmaceuticals/Radiologic Imaging Agents).
3. Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.d.t. (Supplies and Other).
4. Tuesday, June 4, 2013, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.d.t. (Durable Medical Equipment (DME) and Accessories & (Orthotics and Prosthetics)).
• April 24, 2013 for the May 8, 2013 and May 9, 2013 public meetings.
• May 15, 2013 for the May 29, 2013 public meeting.
• May 22, 2013 for the June 4, 2013 public meeting.
• April 22, 2013 for the May 8, 2013 and May 9, 2013 public meetings.
• May 10, 2013 for the May 29, 2013 public meeting.
• May 16, 2013 for the June 4, 2013 public meeting.
• May 1, 2013 for the May 8, 2013 and May 9, 2013 public meeting dates.
• May 22, 2013 for the May 29, 2013 public meeting date.
• May 29, 2013 for the June 4, 2013 public meeting date.
• April 24, 2013 for the May 8, 2013 and May 9, 2013 public meetings.
• May 15, 2013 for the May 29, 2013 public meeting.
• May 22, 2013 for the June 4, 2013 public meeting.
Jennifer Carver at (410) 786-6610 or
On December 21, 2000, the Congress passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554). Section 531(b) of BIPA mandated that we establish procedures that permit public consultation for coding and payment determinations for new durable medical equipment (DME) under Medicare Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act). The procedures and public meetings announced in this notice for new DME are in response to the mandate of section 531(b) of BIPA.
In the November 23, 2001
The public meeting process provides an opportunity for the public to become aware of coding changes under consideration, as well as an opportunity for CMS to gather public input.
The following information must be provided when registering:
• Name.
• Company name and address.
• Direct-dial telephone and fax numbers.
• Email address.
• Special needs information.
Individuals must also indicate whether they are the “primary speaker” for an agenda item. Primary speakers must be designated by the entity that submitted the HCPCS coding request. When registering, primary speakers must provide a brief written statement regarding the nature of the information they intend to provide, and advise the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator regarding needs for audio/visual support. To avoid disruption of the meeting and ensure compatibility with our systems, tapes and disk files are tested and arranged in speaker sequence well in advance of the meeting. We will accept tapes and disk files that are received by the deadline for submissions for each public meeting as specified in the
The materials may be emailed or delivered by regular mail to one of the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinators as specified in the
To afford the same opportunity to all attendees, 5-minute speakers are not required to register as primary speakers. However, 5-minute speakers must still register as attendees by the deadline set forth under “Deadlines for all Other Attendees Registration” in the
We were able this year to combine the Orthotics/Prosthetics and DME meeting into one public meeting date. That public meeting will be Tuesday, June 4, 2013.
The product category reported by the applicant may not be the same as that assigned by us. Prior to registering to attend a public meeting, all participants are advised to review the public meeting agendas at
Additional details regarding the public meeting process for all new public requests for revisions to the HCPCS, along with information on how to register and guidelines for an effective presentation, will be posted at least 4 weeks before the first meeting date on the official HCPCS Web site at
The HCPCS Web site also contains a document titled “HCPCS Decision Tree & Definitions” which illustrates, in a flow diagram format, HCPCS coding standards as described in our Coding Procedures document.
A summary of each public meeting will be posted on the HCPCS Web site by the end of August 2013.
We can only estimate the amount of meeting time that will be needed since it is difficult to anticipate the total number of speakers that will register for each meeting. Meeting participants should arrive early to allow time to clear security and sign-in. Each meeting is expected to begin promptly as scheduled. Meetings may end earlier than the stated ending time.
All primary speakers must register as provided under the section titled “Meeting Registration.” Materials and writings that will be used in support of an oral presentation should be submitted to one of the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinators.
The materials may be emailed or delivered by regular mail to one of the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinators as specified in the
The individual or entity requesting revisions to the HCPCS coding system for a particular agenda item may designate one “primary speaker” to make a presentation for a maximum of 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes is the total time interval for the presentation, and the presentation must incorporate the demonstration, set-up, and distribution of material. In establishing the public meeting agenda, we may group multiple, related requests under the same agenda item. In that case, we will decide whether additional time will be allotted, and may opt to increase the amount of time allotted to the speaker by increments of less than 15 minutes.
Individuals designated to be the primary speaker must register to attend the meeting using the registration procedures described under the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice and contact one of the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinators, specified in the
Meeting attendees can sign up at the meeting, on a first-come, first-served basis, to make 5-minute presentations on individual agenda items. Based on the number of items on the agenda and the progress of the meeting, a determination will be made at the meeting by the meeting coordinator and the meeting moderator regarding how many 5-minute speakers can be accommodated.
On the day of the meeting, before the end of the meeting, all primary speakers and 5-minute speakers must provide a brief written summary of their comments and conclusions to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator.
Each primary speaker and 5-minute speaker must declare in their presentation at the meeting, as well as in their written summary, whether they have any financial involvement with the manufacturers or competitors of any items being discussed; this includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to that speaker by the manufacturer or the manufacturer's representatives.
Written comments will be accepted from the general public and meeting registrants anytime up to the date of the public meeting at which a request is discussed. Comments must be sent to the address listed in the
Meeting attendees may also submit their written comments at the meeting. Due to the close timing of the public meetings, subsequent workgroup reconsiderations, and final decisions, we are able to consider only those comments received in writing by the close of the public meeting at which the request is discussed.
The meetings are held within the CMS Complex which is not open to the general public. Visitors to the complex are required to show a valid U.S. Government issued photo identification, preferably a driver's license, at the time of entry. Participants will also be subject to a vehicular search before access to the complex is granted. Participants not in possession of a valid identification or who are in possession of prohibited items will be denied access to the complex. Prohibited items on Federal property include but are not limited to, alcoholic beverages, illegal narcotics, explosives, firearms or other dangerous weapons (including pocket knives), dogs or other animals except service animals. Once cleared for entry to the complex participants will be directed to parking by a security officer.
In order to ensure expedited entry into the building it is recommended that participants have their ID and a copy of their written meeting registration confirmation readily available and that they do not bring laptops or large/bulky items into the building. Participants are reminded that photography on the CMS complex is prohibited. CMS has also been declared a tobacco free campus and violators are subject to legal action. In planning arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes before the convening of the meeting each day.
Guest access to the complex is limited to the meeting area, the main lobby, and the cafeteria. If a visitor is found outside of those areas without proper escort they may be escorted out of the facility. Also be mindful that there will be an opportunity for everyone to speak and we request that everyone waits for the appropriate time to present their product or opinions. Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated and may result in removal from the meetings and escort from the complex. No visitor is allowed to attach USB cables, thumb drives or any other equipment to any CMS information technology (IT) system or hardware for any purpose at anytime. Additionally, CMS staff is prohibited from taking such actions on behalf of a visitor or utilizing any removable media provided by a visitor.
We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a presentation. Special arrangements and approvals are required at least 2 weeks prior to each public meeting in order to bring pieces of equipment or medical devices. These arrangements need to be made with the public meeting coordinator. It is possible that certain requests made in advance of the public meeting could be denied because of unique safety, security or handling issues related to the equipment. A minimum of 2 weeks is required for approvals and security procedures. Any request not submitted at least 2 weeks in advance of the public meeting will be denied.
CMS policy requires that every foreign national (as defined by the Department of Homeland Security is “an individual who is a citizen of any country other than the United States”) is assigned a host (in accordance with the Department Foreign Visitor Management Policy, Appendix C, Guidelines for Hosts and Escorts). The host/hosting official is required to inform the Division of Critical Infrastructure Protection (DCIP) at least 12 business days in advance of any visit by a foreign national. Foreign nationals will be required to produce a valid passport at the time of entry.
Attendees that are foreign nationals need to identify themselves as such, and provide the following information for security clearance to the public meeting coordinator by the date specified in the
• Visitor's full name (as it appears on passport).
• Gender.
• Country of origin and citizenship.
• Biographical data and related information.
• Date of birth.
• Place of birth.
• Passport number.
• Passport issue date.
• Passport expiration date.
• Dates of visits.
• Company Name.
• Position/Title.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Accreditation and Reaccreditation Process for Firms Under the Third Party Review Program: Part I.” The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), requires FDA to establish and publish criteria to reaccredit or deny reaccreditation to persons accredited by FDA under the FD&C Act to perform premarket review of medical devices. This draft guidance describes the accreditation, reaccreditation, and accreditation withdrawal processes, including criteria that will be considered to accredit, reaccredit, deny accreditation to, and deny reaccreditation to third party
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 16, 2013.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance document entitled “Accreditation and Reaccreditation Process for Firms Under the Third Party Review Program: Part I” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-847-8149. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
The FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA, requires FDA to establish and publish criteria to reaccredit and deny reaccreditation to third parties accredited under section 523 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360m) to perform premarket review of class I and eligible class II premarket notification (510(k)) submissions. This draft guidance describes the accreditation, reaccreditation, and accreditation withdrawal processes, including criteria that will be considered to accredit, reaccredit, deny accreditation to, and deny reaccreditation to firms under the Third Party Review Program (TPRP).
The International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) recently issued a proposed draft document entitled “Recognition Criteria for Medical Device Auditing Organizations” (IMDRF document), available at
The IMDRF draft document reflects the group's effort to develop the foundations for a Single Audit Program for medical devices that includes criteria for the recognition and rerecognition of third party auditing organizations. (The IMDRF document refers to the “recognition” of third parties, whereas the FD&C Act refers to the “accreditation” of third parties.) The IMDRF document includes criteria used or proposed by member countries for conformity assessment bodies and third party reviewers. The IMDRF also plans to incorporate specific requirements for competency and considerations for codes of conduct that together will constitute the basis for the recognition of third party auditors under a Single Audit Program. When finalized and adopted, this document will represent a harmonized standard for participating countries and could be useful to FDA to the extent consistent with the FD&C Act and other relevant laws and regulations.
In an effort to develop accreditation and reaccreditation criteria that could be used in the future for a harmonized TPRP, in this draft guidance we use recognition criteria described in the IMDRF document as part of the criteria for third party accreditation by FDA. We intend to incorporate information from the IMDRF document in a subsequent draft guidance to the extent appropriate as part of the criteria for accreditation and reaccreditation of reviewers under the TPRP.
We plan to update and re-issue this guidance in draft again for further comment once the IMDRF has finalized the IMDRF document, which is expected to be in December 2013. This guidance does not address accreditation of inspectors under the FDA Third Party Inspection Program.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on the accreditation and reaccreditation process for firms under the TPRP. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3502), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether
Accreditation and Reaccreditation Process for Firms Under the Third Party Review Program:
Part I: Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
This draft guidance describes revised accreditation, new reaccreditation, and accreditation withdrawal processes, including criteria that will be considered to accredit, reaccredit, deny accreditation to, and deny reaccreditation to third party reviewers under the TPRP. The guidance provides recommendations regarding the information that should be submitted for consideration to accredit and reaccredit. This guidance when finalized, will revise the collections of information for FDA's Third Party Review Program, OMB control number 0910-0375.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Currently approved collection requirements:
1. Reporting
a. Requests for accreditation: In the past 3 years, the Agency has averaged receipt of one application for accreditation for third party review.
b. Premarket notification (510(k)) reviews conducted by accredited third parties: According to FDA's data in 2009, the Agency has experienced that the number of 510(k)s submitted for third-party review is approximately 260 annually, which is 26 annual reviews per each of the 10 accredited reviewers.
2. Recordkeeping
a. Third party reviewers are required to keep records of their review of each submission. According to FDA's in 2009, the Agency anticipates approximately 260 submissions of 510(k)s for third party review per year.
Proposed revisions to currently approved collection:
a. Requests for reaccreditation: The Agency anticipates an average receipt of four applications for reaccreditation for third party review.
a. Record retention related to reaccreditation program: The Agency anticipates that there will be a requirement to retain documentation to support reaccreditation.
The respondents for this information collection are private sector, for-profit firms seeking accreditation and reaccreditation to participate as third party reviewers to review 510(k)s for certain low-to-moderate risk devices. FDA estimates that it will receive approximately four requests for reaccreditation annually. The Agency reached this estimate by reviewing the number of existing accredited firms under the TPRP program and prorating the reaccreditation of each firm every 3 years.
FDA estimates from past experiences involving the accreditation and TPRP processes that requests will take approximately 24 hours per respondent. This average is based upon estimates by FDA administrative and technical staff who are familiar with the requirements for accreditation and reaccreditation under the TPRP. FDA requests comments on these estimates and the methodology used to estimate the burdens.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Clinical Study Designs for Surgical Ablation Devices for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.” This guidance provides FDA's recommendations on clinical trial designs for surgical ablation devices intended for the treatment of atrial fibrillation.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance document entitled “Clinical Study Designs for Surgical Ablation Devices for Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-847-8149. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Libet Garber, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1254, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6912.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a complex arrhythmia of the heart. This guidance describes elements of suggested clinical study design for surgical ablation devices used to treat patients with longstanding persistent AF and patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF, such as inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessment of effectiveness, which may differ for these patient populations. In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on clinical study designs for surgical ablation devices for treatment of atrial fibrillation. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0130; and the collections of information under 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231.
Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets. Seating for this meeting may be limited, so the public is encouraged to watch the free Webcast if you are unable to attend. The link for the Webcast will be available beginning at 8 a.m. on March 14, 2013 (see
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Bryan Emery at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact James Clark, Conference Management Staff, at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Drug Accountability Report Form and Investigator Registration Procedure in the Conduct of Investigational Trials for the Treatment of Cancer (NCI)
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collected below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response times, should be directed to the Attention: NIH Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, at
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days following the date of this publication.
Proposed Collection: Drug Accountability Report Form and Investigator Registration Procedure in the Conduct of Investigational Trials for the Treatment of Cancer (NCI), OMB No.0925-0613, Expiration Date: 2/28/2013, Revision, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH).
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 14,328.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is holding a conference, titled “Consensus Development Conference: Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.” The conference will be open to the public.
The conference will be held on March 4-6, 2013, in the NIH Natcher Conference Center, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
Advance information about the conference and conference registration materials may be obtained from the NIH Consensus Development Program Information Center by calling 888-644-2667 or by sending an email to
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a condition in which women without previously diagnosed diabetes exhibit high blood glucose levels during pregnancy (especially during the third trimester of pregnancy). It is defined as carbohydrate intolerance, which is the inability of the body to adequately process carbohydrates (sugars and starches) into energy for the body, and develops or is first recognized during pregnancy. GDM is estimated to occur in 1-14 percent of U.S. pregnancies, affecting more than 200,000 women annually. It is one of the most common disorders in pregnancy and is associated with an increased risk of complications for the mother and child. Potential complications during pregnancy and delivery include preeclampsia (high blood pressure and excess protein in the urine), cesarean delivery, macrosomia (large birth weight), shoulder dystocia (when a baby's shoulders become lodged during delivery), and birth injuries. For the neonate, complications include difficulty breathing at birth, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), and jaundice. Up to one-half of the women who have GDM during pregnancy will develop type 2 diabetes later in life.
Although the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force found in 2008 that the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance between the benefits and harms of screening women for GDM, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends universal screening for gestational diabetes using patient history, risk factors, or laboratory testing, such as with a glucose challenge test (GCT). Different approaches are used internationally for screening and diagnosis of GDM. The standard method in the United States begins with a GCT, which involves drinking a sweetened liquid containing 50 grams of sugar (glucose). A blood sample is taken after 1 hour, which measures the glucose level. If high, a diagnostic test is administered using a larger dose of glucose, and several blood tests are performed over 3 hours. Depending on the test used and the chosen blood glucose levels that are used to diagnose GDM, the number of women who will receive the diagnosis will vary. Debate continues regarding the choice of tests and the effectiveness of treatment, especially in women with mild to moderate glucose intolerance. Potential harms of screening for GDM include anxiety for patients and the potentially adverse effects of a “high-risk” label in pregnancy. In addition, women diagnosed with GDM face stressors, including dietary constraints; a need to add or increase exercise; frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose levels; and, for some, self-administration of insulin, which will require adjustments of insulin doses.
To better understand the benefits and risks of various GDM screening and diagnostic approaches, the NIH has engaged in a rigorous assessment of the available scientific evidence. This process is sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the NIH Office of Disease Prevention. A multidisciplinary planning committee developed the following key questions:
1. What are the current screening and diagnostic approaches for gestational diabetes mellitus, what are the glycemic thresholds for each approach, and how were these thresholds chosen?
2. What are the effects of various gestational diabetes mellitus screening/diagnostic approaches for patients, providers, and U.S. health care systems?
3. In the absence of treatment, how do health outcomes of mothers who meet various criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus and their offspring compare with those who do not?
4. Does treatment modify the health outcomes of mothers who meet various criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus and their offspring?
5. What are the harms of treating gestational diabetes mellitus, and do they vary by diagnostic approach?
6. Given all of the above, what diagnostic approach(es) for gestational diabetes mellitus should be recommended, if any?
7. What are the key research gaps in the diagnostic approach for gestational diabetes mellitus?
An evidence report on GDM was prepared through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Centers program and this Consensus Development Conference will be held on March 4-6, 2013.
During the conference, invited experts, including the authors of the evidence report, will present scientific data. Attendees will have opportunities to ask questions and provide comments during open discussion periods. After weighing the evidence, an unbiased, independent panel will prepare and present a consensus statement addressing the key questions. The statement will be widely disseminated to practitioners, policymakers, patients, researchers, the general public, and the media.
Please Note: As part of the NIH's measures to ensure the safety of employees and property, all visitors must be prepared to show a photo ID upon request. Visitors may be required to pass through a metal detector and have bags, backpacks, or purses inspected or x-rayed as they enter NIH buildings. For more information about the security measures at NIH, please visit the Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee (MEDMAC) will meet on March 14-15, 2013 to discuss matters relating to medical certification determinations for issuance of merchant mariner credentials, medical standards and guidelines for physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels, medical examiner education, and medical research. The meeting will be open to the public.
MEDMAC will meet on Thursday, March 14, and Friday, March 15, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held at the Houston Pilots facility, 203 Deerwood Glen Drive, Deer Park, TX 77536.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Lieutenant Ashley Holm, the MEDMAC Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), 202-372-1128 as soon as possible.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Comments must be submitted in writing to the Coast Guard on or before March 4, 2013 and must be identified by USCG-2011-0138 and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held on March 14, 2013, from approximately 9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and on March 15, 2013 from approximately 4:40 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Additionally, public comment will be sought throughout the meeting as specific tasks and issues are discussed by the committee. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker.
Lieutenant Ashley Holm, the MEDMAC ADFO, at telephone 202-372-1128 or email
Notice of this meeting is given under the
(1) Remarks from Presiding Officer of the Houston Pilots, Captain Robert Thompson.
(2) Opening comments by Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Captain K.P. McAvoy.
(3) Remarks from the Director of Inspections and Compliance, Captain P.F. Thomas.
(4) Introduction and swearing in of the new member, Chair andVice-Chair designations.
(5) Review of Last Full Committee Meeting's Minutes.
(6) Public Comments.
(7) Working Groups reports out.
(8) Working Groups addressing the following task statements may meet to deliberate—
(a) Task Statement 1, Revision of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 04-08. The NVIC can be found at
(b) Task Statement 2, Top medical conditions leading to denial of mariner credentials.
(c) Task Statement 4, Revising the CG-719K Medical Evaluation Report Form for mariner physicals. The form can be found at
(d) Task Statement 5, Creating medical expert panels for the top medical conditions.
(e) Task Statement 6, Developing designated medical examiner program.
(1) Presentation by the Heart Rhythm Society (Task 1 & 2).
(2) Continue work on Task Statements.
(3) By mid-afternoon, the Working Groups will report, and if applicable, make recommendations for the full committee to consider for presentation to the Coast Guard. The committee may take official action on these recommendations on this date. The public will have an opportunity to speak after each Working Group's Report before the full committee takes any action on each report.
(4) Public Comments.
(5) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) will meet on March 12, 2013 and March 13, 2013 in Houston, TX, to discuss various issues related to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. This meeting will be open to the public.
MERPAC working groups will meet on March 12, 2013, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m., and the full committee will meet on March 13, 2013, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. This meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished.
The Committee will meet in the Red Room of the West Gulf Maritime Association (WGMA), 1717 Turning Basin, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77029. For further information on the location of WGMA, please contact Mr. Niels Lyngso at (713) 715-6443.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, contact Mr. Davis Breyer at 202-372-1445 as soon as possible.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee and working groups as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments for distribution to committee members and inclusion on MERPAC's Web site must be submitted by February 26, 2013.
Written comments must be identified by Docket No. USCG-2013-0073 and submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
A public oral comment period will be held each day. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public oral comment period may end before the
Mr. Davis Breyer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), telephone 202-372-1445, or at
If you have any questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
Notice of this meeting is given under the
MERPAC is an advisory committee established under the Secretary's authority in section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title 6, United States Code, section 451, and chartered under the provisions of the FACA. The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards on matters relating to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine, including but not limited to training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards. The Committee will advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.
The agenda for the March 12, 2013, meeting is as follows:
(1) The full committee will meet briefly to discuss the working groups' business/task statements, which are listed under paragraph 2 (a)-(g) below.
(2) Working groups addressing the following task statements, available for viewing at
(a) Task Statement 30, Utilizing Military Education, Training and Assessment for STCW (the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification & Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) (1978), as amended) and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications;
(b) Task Statement 58, Stakeholder Communications during Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation Program (MLD) Restructuring and Centralization;
(c) Task Statement 71, Review of USCG Operational Level Examination (3rd Mate/2nd Mate and 3rd/2nd Assistant Engineer) Topics and Questions and Alignment with the STCW Code;
(d) Task Statement 73, Development of Training Guidance for Engineers Serving on Near-Coastal Vessels;
(e) Task Statement 77, Development of Performance Measures (Assessment Criteria);
(f) Task Statement 78, Consideration of the International Labor Organization's Maritime Labour Convention, 2006; and
(g) Task Statement 80, Crew Training Requirements Onboard Natural Gas-Fueled Vessels Other Than Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers.
(3) Public comment period.
(4) Reports of working groups. At the end of the day, the working groups will report to the full committee on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full committee will not take action on these reports on this date. Any official action taken as a result of this working group meeting will be taken on day 2 of the meeting.
(5) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the March 13, 2013, Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) Introduction;
(2) Remarks from Coast Guard Leadership;
(3) Roll call of committee members and determination of a quorum;
(4) Designated Federal Officer (DFO) announcements;
(5) Reports from the following working groups;
(a) Task Statement 30, Utilizing Military Education, Training and Assessment for STCW and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications;
(b) Task Statement 58, Stakeholder Communications during MLD Program Restructuring and Centralization;
(c) Task Statement 71, Review of USCG Operational Level Examination (3rd Mate/2nd Mate and 3rd/2nd Assistant Engineer) Topics and Questions and Alignment with the STCW Code;
(d) Task Statement 73, Development of Training Guidance for Engineers Serving on Near-Coastal Vessels;
(e) Task Statement 77, Development of Performance Measures (Assessment Criteria);
(f) Task Statement 78, Consideration of the International Labor Organization's Maritime Labour Convention, 2006; and
(g) Task Statement 80, Crew Training Requirements Onboard Natural Gas-Fueled Vessels Other Than Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers.
(6) Other items for discussion:
(a) Report on National Maritime Center (NMC) activities from NMC Commanding Officer, such as the net processing time it takes for a mariner to receive his or her credential after application submittal;
(b) Report on Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division activities, such as its current initiatives and projects;
(c) Report on International Maritime Organization (IMO)/International Labor Organization (ILO) issues related to the merchant marine industry;
(d) Report on the implementation of the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention; and
(e) Briefings about on-going Coast Guard projects related to personnel in the U.S. Merchant Marine, such as proposed Task Statements concerning:
• Training for officers and crewmembers aboard ships operating in polar waters;
• Review of CG-719K (Merchant Mariner Physical Examination Report) & CG-719K/E (Merchant Marine Certification of Fitness for Entry Level Ratings); and
• Development of competency requirements for engineers working on small vessels with high horsepower.
(7) Public comment period/presentations.
(8) Discussion of working group recommendations. The committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the working groups and approve/formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.
(9) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(10) Adjournment of meeting.
A copy of all meeting documentation, including the Task Statements, is available at
Minutes will be available 90 days after this meeting.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is providing notice that it has issued an annual summary of all enforcement actions taken by TSA under the authority granted in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
Emily Su, Assistant Chief Counsel, Civil Enforcement, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002; telephone (571) 227-2305; facsimile (571) 227-1378; email
On August 3, 2007, section 1302(a) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (the 9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53, 121 Stat. 392, gave TSA new authority to assess civil penalties for violations of any surface transportation requirements under title 49 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) and for any violations of chapter 701 of title 46 of the U.S. Code, which governs transportation worker identification credentials.
Section 1302(a) of the 9/11 Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. 114(v), authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation of any surface transportation requirement under 49 U.S.C. or any requirement related to transportation worker identification credentials (TWIC) under 46 U.S.C. chapter 701. TSA exercises this function under delegated authority from the Secretary. See DHS Delegation No. 7060-2.
Under 49 U.S.C. 114(v)(7)(A), TSA is required to provide the public with an annual summary of all enforcement actions taken by TSA under this subsection; and include in each such summary the identifying information of each enforcement action, the type of alleged violation, the penalty or penalties proposed, and the final assessment amount of each penalty. This summary is for calendar year 2012. TSA will publish a summary of all enforcement actions taken under the statute in January to cover the previous calendar year.
You can get an electronic copy of both this notice and the enforcement actions summary on the Internet by searching the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) web page at
You can get an electronic copy of only this notice on the Internet by—
(1) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at
(2) Visiting TSA's Security Regulations web page at http://www.tsa.gov and accessing the link for “Stakeholders” at the top of the page, then the link “Research Center” in the left column.
In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the
60-Day Notice of Information Collection; File No. I-352, Immigration Bond; OMB Control No. 1653-0022.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), will submit the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until April 16, 2013.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Scott Elmore, Forms Managment, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 801 I Street NW., Stop 5800, Washington, DC 20536; (202) 732-2601.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until April 16, 2013. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information 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 agencies 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)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following application to conduct certain activities with endangered or threatened species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by March 18, 2013.
You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by any of the following methods. Alternatively, you may use one of the following methods to request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please specify the permit you are interested in by number (e.g., Permit No. TE-131638).
•
•
•
Kathy Konishi, Permit Coordinator Ecological Services, (303) 236-4212 (phone);
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes you to conduct activities with United States endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following application. Documents and other information the applicant has submitted are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Applicant requests an amendment to an existing permit to receive (display live) hawksbill sea turtle
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in 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 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.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, make available the final environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision analyzing the impacts of the issuance of an incidental take permit for implementation of the final Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Our decision is to issue a 15-year incidental take permit to the EARIP for implementation of the preferred alternative (described below), which authorizes incidental take of animal species and impacts to plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The EARIP has agreed to implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to offset impacts to these species, as described in their HCP.
We are issuing the Record of Decision (ROD) with this notice, and a final permit will not become effective sooner than 30 days after publication of this notice. We must receive any comments on the final EIS and HCP by March 18, 2013.
You may obtain copies of the final documents by going to
Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758 or (512) 490-0057.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision (ROD), which we developed in compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), as well as the final Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as submitted by the applicants. All alternatives have been described in detail, evaluated, and analyzed in our December 2012 final EIS and the EARIP HCP. The ROD documents the rationale for our decision.
Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences as described in our final EIS, we have selected Alternative 2, the proposed HCP. The proposed action is to issue to the EARIP applicants an incidental take permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Take of listed plant species is not defined in the Act, although the Act does identify several prohibitions. However, because covered species in the EARIP HCP include both plants and animals, in the following discussion we use the term “incidental take” when discussing impacts to covered plants, as well as actual incidental take of covered animals.
The EARIP will implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to offset impacts to the covered species according to their HCP. The minimization and mitigation measures include spring flow and habitat protection. Spring flow protection measures will ensure that no interruption of flow at springs will occur during wet, normal, or drought conditions. Habitat protection measures will restore and enhance aquatic and riparian habitat in the Comal and San Marcos River systems.
The EARIP has applied for an incidental take permit (TE63663A-0, ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), that would authorize incidental take of animal species and impacts to plant species (covered species) in all, or portions, of eight Texas counties. The requested ITP, which will be in effect for a period of 15 years, will authorize incidental take of seven federally listed animal species and impacts to one listed plant species, and would cover three non-listed species. The proposed incidental take could occur within Bexar, Medina, and Uvalde Counties, and portions of Atascosa, Caldwell, Comal, Guadalupe, and Hays Counties in Texas (permit area), and would result from activities associated with otherwise lawful activities, including the regulation and use of groundwater for irrigation, industrial, municipal, domestic, and livestock purposes; the use of instream flows in the Comal River and San Marcos River for recreational uses; and other operational and maintenance activities that could affect Comal Springs, San Marcos Springs, and their associated river systems (covered activities). The final EIS considers the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementation of the HCP, including the measures that will be implemented to minimize and mitigate such impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Incidental take coverage is also provided for any take of covered species that may occur during species management and habitat restoration and management activities related to the minimization and mitigation proposed within the HCP.
On July 20, 2012, we issued a draft EIS and requested public comment on our evaluation of the potential impacts associated with issuance of an ITP for implementation of the HCP and to evaluate alternatives, along with the draft HCP (77 FR 42756). We included public comments and responses associated with the draft EIS and draft HCP in the final EIS.
The purpose of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit is to authorize incidental take associated with the covered activities described above. We identified key issues and relevant factors through conducting public scoping and public meetings, working with other agencies and groups, and reviewing comments from the public. In response to the publication of the draft EIS and draft HCP, we received responses from 3 Federal agencies, 2 State agencies, and 25 other organizations and individuals. The Environmental Protection Agency had “no objections” to the implementation of the preferred alternative. The National Resources Conservation Service agreed with the selection of Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. The National Park Service stated that they had no comments. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality supported the selection of the HCP as the preferred alternative. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department stated that they support the HCP and the DEIS, and provided minor edits and specific clarifying comments intended to improve the documents. Comments from individuals and non-profit organizations provided support for the HCP and the EIS selection of the preferred alternative. Aside from minor edits or suggested clarifications, no substantive comments were received on the draft HCP or the draft EIS.
We considered four alternatives in the EIS.
Alternative 1—No action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not issue an incidental take permit for the EARIP HCP.
Alternative 2—Preferred Alternative: Our selected alternative is the proposed HCP with a 15-year term, and the preferred alternative as described in the final EIS, which provides for the issuance of an ITP to the EARIP Applicants for incidental take of covered species that may occur as a result of covered activities. This alternative includes a number of measures to maintain or manage springflow, including Critical Period Management (CPM) pumping restrictions, management of an Aquifer Storage and Recharge (ASR) facility to meet water demand that offsets reduced pumping from the Edwards Aquifer near the springs during drought, a Voluntary Irrigation Suspension Program that provides economic incentives to reduce pumping for irrigated agriculture during drought conditions, and a Regional Water Conservation Program. The HCP also provides for habitat restoration and management measures that minimize and mitigate impacts from the potential incidental take to the maximum extent practicable.
Alternative 3—Expanded ASR Program: This alternative would result in the construction of new infrastructure to inject water stored in an expanded ASR into the aquifer to maintain springflow. It includes issuance of an ITP and implementation of an HCP incorporating expanded aquifer storage and recharge actions and CPM pumping restrictions to achieve springflow and covered species protections.
Alternative 4—Highest Pumping Restriction: Alternative 4 would implement the most restrictive pumping regulations to maintain spring flows protective of the covered species.
We intend to issue an ITP to the EARIP applicants for implementation of the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) as it is described in the HCP. Our decision is based on a thorough review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences. Implementation of this decision entails issuance of the ITP by the Service and full implementation of the HCP by the EARIP, including minimization and mitigation measures, monitoring and adaptive management, and complying with all terms and conditions in the ITP.
We have selected the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) for implementation based on multiple environmental and social factors, including potential impacts and benefits to covered species and their habitats; the extent and effectiveness of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures; and social and economic considerations. We did not choose the No Action Alternative, because, as compared with the preferred alternative, it does not protect listed species from potential take from covered activities. We did not choose the Expanded ASR Program (Alternative 3) because of the uncertainties related to the effectiveness of the Expanded ASR Program regarding effects to listed species and the economic impacts to water users throughout the region are greater than those anticipated under Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would curtail pumping more than the preferred alternative, causing the greatest economic impact on water users of any of the alternatives, and was therefore not selected.
In order to issue an ITP we must ascertain that the HCP meets the issuance criteria set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(A) and (B). We have made that determination based on the criteria summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
We have determined that the preferred alternative best balances the protection and management of habitat for covered species, while providing compliance with the Act for withdrawal and use of Edwards Aquifer water in the permit area. Considerations used in this decision include whether (1) mitigation will benefit the covered species, (2) adaptive management of the conservation measures will ensure that the goals and objectives of the HCP are realized, (3) conservation measures will protect and enhance habitat, (4) mitigation measures for the covered species will fully offset anticipated impacts to species and provide recovery opportunities, and (5) the HCP is consistent with the covered species' recovery plans.
A final permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days after the publication of this notice of availability.
You may obtain copies of the final EIS, ROD, and final HCP by going to
• Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Library, 1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87102.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758.
Persons wishing to review the application may obtain a copy by writing to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. 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 publically available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32), and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Council) will meet to select North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) grant proposals for recommendation to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (Commission). This meeting is open to the public, and interested persons may present oral or written statements.
The Council meeting will be held at the Grand Ballroom E at the Crystal Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, Virginia 22202.
Cynthia Perry, Council Coordinator, by phone at (703) 358-2432; by email at
In accordance with NAWCA (Pub. L. 101-233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended), the State-private-Federal Council meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Commission. Project proposal due dates, application instructions, and eligibility requirements are available on the NAWCA Web site at
Proposals require a minimum of 50 percent non-Federal matching funds.
If you are interested in presenting information at this public meeting, contact the Council Coordinator no later than the date under
The Council will consider Canadian standard grant and U.S. small grant proposals at the meeting announced in
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the public meeting. If you wish to submit a written statement, so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to this meeting, you must contact the Council Coordinator by the date above. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in both of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation at the Council meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator by the date above, in writing (preferably via email; see
Summary minutes of the Council and meeting will be maintained by the Council Coordinator at the address under
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Approved Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact.
This notice publishes an extension of the gaming compact between the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota.
Effective Date: February 15, 2013.
Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(3)(B), the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On December 28, 2012, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries, Biloxi, MS, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on February 11, 2013. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4380 (February 2013), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On February 11, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the lawsuit entitled
The consent decree would resolve claims under the Clean Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as well as Florida law, addressing natural resource damage resulting from a spill at a facility owned and operated by Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (“Mosaic”). Mosaic owns and operates a phosphoric acid/fertilizer production facility in Riverview, Florida. Mosaic released hazardous acidic process water at and from the gypsum stack at its Riverview facility in 2004 over a two-day period. The release entered several swales on Mosaic's property, flowing into South Archie Creek Canal, and eventually to Hillsborough Bay and Tampa Bay. Federal and state natural resource trustees seek damages to compensate for and restore injured natural resources.
The consent decree would resolve the natural resource damages claims through restoration and reimbursement of assessment costs. The consent decree would require Mosaic to perform restoration projects enhancing current wetlands by removing invasive plant species, re-establishing historic tidal flows, and creating an oyster habitat, in addition to executing conservation easements for the protection of approximately 103.76 acres of habitat adjacent to Mosaic's release area. In addition to performing restoration projects, Mosaic would pay past and future assessment costs of the trustees and the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission in connection with Mosaic's release.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $41.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.
Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement.
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is soliciting proposals from organizations, groups, or individuals to enter into a cooperative agreement with NIC for up to 12 months beginning March 2013. Through this cooperative agreement, funds will be made available for the production of a minimum of five live satellite/Internet broadcasts. NIC will accept proposals for the creative use of 15 broadcast hours, using either NIC's traditional 3-hour long-form talk show broadcast format or other suggested formats for this work. All of the proposed satellite/Internet programs are 3-hour and/or 2-day, 6-hour (3 hours each day) interactive training broadcasts, featuring on- and off-air activities during nationwide broadcasts. This agreement also includes the production of pre-recorded video clips and screen captures that will enhance the instructional value of the broadcast or otherwise enhance the “look and feel” of visual materials, the set, or other items to be used during the broadcast.
Applications must be received by 4:00 p.m. (EDT) on Friday, March 8, 2013.
Mailed applications must be sent to: Director, National Institute of Corrections, 320 First Street NW., Room 5002, Washington, DC 20534. Applicants are encouraged to use Federal Express, UPS, or similar service to ensure delivery by the due date.
Hand-delivered applications should be brought to 500 First Street NW., Washington, DC 20534. At the front desk, dial 7-3106, extension 0, for pickup. Faxed applications will not be accepted. Only electronic applications submitted via
A copy of this announcement can be downloaded from the NIC Web site at
Additionally, NIC, as a leader in correctional learning, continually seeks to use and integrate various forms of visual technology to support and enhance learning within its full continuum of training delivery strategies.
The producer must plan all other activities through telephone and various virtual online platforms (e.g., WebEx, which NIC provides) and consult and collaborate with NIC's DLA in the selection of talent for each broadcast. This will entail review of print and audiovisual materials, as well as phone conversations with potential talent. Face-to-face interviews typically will not be required.
The producer must work with each consultant/trainer to develop his/her content for delivery using the satellite/Internet format. This will entail regular email and telephone communication as well as regularly scheduled updates with key stakeholders on the broadcast team.
The producer will coordinate script and rundown development, graphic design, production elements, and rehearsals for each broadcast and use his/her professional expertise in designing creative ways to deliver satellite/Internet broadcasts.
The producer will develop detailed storyboards for each broadcast. Significant contribution to the development of the storyboard will come from designated content experts, the talent selected to appear in the broadcast, and NIC's DLA. NIC's DLA maintains final approval of all storyboards, video, and other materials produced or used in any broadcast. Please refer to “Content Development Countdown” attached to this announcement and also found on NIC's Web site at
The producer will supervise camera and audio crews assigned to capture testimonial footage from leaders in the criminal justice field, who answer questions and provide general comment on an array of correctional topics. There will be two or more of these sessions during this agreement. Each shoot will entail 1- to 2-day video shoots at national correctional conferences where appropriate talent/audiences will be convening. The producer will work in concert with the NIC DLA and the NIC broadcast program coordinator(s) in creating testimonial questions for each upcoming broadcast topic to be capture at scheduled conferences/events.
NIC's DLA will lead meetings with the broadcast host(s) and video producer in attendance. (Costs associated with the producer's participation in the planning meetings and the rehearsal/broadcast days for each broadcast are to be included within this award.) The meeting will (1) set learning objectives, (2) develop a theme, metaphor, or other creative hook that will set a context for the broadcast (The hook will support the content of the broadcast and will assist in determining the creative approaches through which that content can be delivered in a live broadcast.), (3) develop a rough outline of key content for each broadcast segment, using content learning objectives as a guideline, (4) generate a list of resources (videos, photos, etc.) that could support the segment, (5) discretely determine which experts might be good on camera and involved in the future development process, and (6) determine potential segment team assignments for further content development if casting for an in-studio team is deemed appropriate.
The awardee will book one preparation call, in addition to the final run-through Webex with presenters/trainers the week before the cast and crew travel to the shoot location. The call will cover logistics and an overview of the agenda for the 2 days. On rehearsal day (typically, Tuesday morning), the producer will show all broadcast staff and talent the final video clips, graphics, and visuals, etc., and complete a technical run-through of the program. The host(s) and producer will lead staff through the program outline.
Production schedules will overlap to fit all broadcasts within the award period. It is necessary, due to the 12- to 14-week planning development process and minimum of 5 broadcasts (15 hours of broadcast time) to be delivered as part of this award (a combination of 3-hour and/or 2-day, 6 hour [3 hours each day] interactive training broadcasts), that the awardee prepare to provide ample time for one producer to be able to handle multiple projects at once and/or be staffed to provide multiple producers to achieve the scope of work for this agreement. A definitive plan to accomplish this role and function must be included in the proposal.
The producer will budget for at least four 10-hour days of vignette shooting, which will include: (1) Professional actors playing the parts designated by the script, (2) a professional video crew, (3) professional quality scenery, props, and wardrobe elements, and (4) broadcast quality lighting and high definition camera gear. It is expected that each shooting day will include 3 to 6 scenes, each resulting in 1 to 4 minutes of screen time.
Additionally, testimonial video footage must be captured well in advance of broadcast delivery dates to ensure ample time for considering the clips for inclusion in the storyboard of a broadcast and to allow sufficient time for editing. These video clips are used in the broadcasts to support the content