Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Office of Advocacy and Outreach
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is amending the regulation that specifies which states compose bona fide cotton spot markets in order to assure consistency with the revised Cotton Research and Promotion Act. Updated bona fide spot market definitions allow for published spot quotes to consider spot prices of cotton marketed in Kansas and Virginia. AMS is also amending references to the “New York Cotton Exchange” to read the “Intercontinental Exchange.”
Darryl Earnest, Deputy Administrator, Cotton & Tobacco Programs, AMS, USDA, 3275 Appling Road, Room 11, Memphis, TN 38133. Telephone (901) 384–3060, facsimile (901) 384–3021, or email
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866; and, therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has determined that its implementation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. There are an estimated 25,000 cotton growers in the U.S. who voluntarily use the AMS cotton classing services annually, and the majority of these cotton growers are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201). Revisions to the regulations concerning bona fide spot market definitions are necessary to assure consistency with the revised Cotton Research and Promotion Act and to allow for published spot quotes to consider spot prices of cotton marketed in Kansas and Virginia. Changes in spot market definitions as stated will not significantly affect small businesses as defined in the RFA because:
(1) How spot prices are estimated are not expected to be impacted by this action;
(2) Business practices of the U.S. cotton industry are not expected to change as a result of this action;
(3) Costs associated with providing market news services will not be significantly changed by this action;
(4) Market news services are paid for by appropriated funds, therefore users are not charged fees for the provision of the services.
In compliance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320), which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501), the information collection requirements contained in the provisions amended by this rule have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581–0009, Cotton Classification and Market New Service.
The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized under the United States Cotton Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15b) to designate at least five bona fide spot markets from which cotton price information can be collected. A spot market—also called the “cash market” or “physical market”—is a market where commodities are sold on the spot for cash at current market prices and delivered immediately. Designation of these bona fide spot markets and the determination of which counties and states compose each of these spot markets was most recently published in the
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–234, 122 Stat. 923, enacted May 22, 2008, H.R. 2419) amended Section 17(f) of the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2116(f)), designating Kansas, Virginia, and Florida as cotton producing states for purposes of the Cotton Research and Promotion Act. To achieve consistency with the revised Cotton Research and Promotion Act and to allow for published spot quotes to consider spot prices of cotton marketed in the aforementioned states, § 27.93 is amended to add all the counties of Virginia to the Southeastern spot market, and Kansas to the East Texas and Oklahoma spot market.
On September 14, 2006, New York Board of Trade—the parent company of the New York Cotton Exchange—agreed to become a unit of Intercontinental Exchange. This transaction was completed on January 12, 2007. To reflect this organizational change in the regulations, § 27.94 is amended such that references to the “New York Cotton Exchange” read as the “Intercontinental Exchange.”
A proposed rule was published in the
Commodity futures, Cotton.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 27 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 15b, 7 U.S.C. 473b, 7 U.S.C. 1622(g).
All counties in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia and all counties in the state of Tennessee east of and including Stewart, Houston, Humphreys, Perry, Wayne and Hardin counties.
All counties in the states of Kansas and Oklahoma and the Texas counties east of and including Montague, Wise, Parker, Erath, Comanche, Mills, San Saba, Mason, Sutton, Edwards, Kinney, Maverick, Webb, Zapata, Star and Hidalgo counties.
(a) For cotton delivered in settlement of any No. 2 contract on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE); Southeastern, North and South Delta, Eastern Texas and Oklahoma, West Texas, and Desert Southwest.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule, Technical Amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for new animal drug applications and abbreviated new animal drug applications during March 2013. FDA is also informing the public of the availability of summaries the basis of approval and of environmental review documents, where applicable.
This rule is effective April 30, 2013.
George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–9019,
FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for new animal drug applications (NADAs) and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) during March 2013, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room:
In addition, the animal drug regulations are being amended at 21 CFR 522.558 to add a new strength of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride injectable solution for use in dogs and cats. This change is being made to improve the accuracy of the regulations.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801–808.
Animal drugs.
Animal drugs, Animal feed.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 522 and 558 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
Federal Housing Commissioner, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Final rule amendment.
On September 7, 2012, HUD published a final rule that revised the regulations governing the insurance of healthcare facilities under section 232 of the National Housing Act (Section 232). HUD's Section 232 program insures mortgage loans to facilitate the construction, substantial rehabilitation, purchase, and refinancing of nursing homes, intermediate care facilities, board and care homes, and assisted-living facilities. The amendments made by the September 7, 2012, final rule updated the Section 232 regulations to reflect current policy and practices, improve accountability and strengthen risk management in the program. The final rule provided an applicability date of April 9, 2013, for certain of the updated requirements. This final rule amendment changes the applicability date to July 12, 2013, for the purpose of allowing more time to transition to the new requirements.
Kelly Haines, Director, Office of Residential Care Facilities, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6264, Washington, DC 20410–8000; telephone number 202–708–0599 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339.
On September 7, 2012, at 77 FR 55120, HUD published in the
On May 3, 2012, at 77 FR 26304, HUD also published a notice that proposed revisions to documents used in the insurance of healthcare facilities, and solicited public comment for a period of 60 days. This notice was issued in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and was followed by a second notice, published on November 21, 2012, at 77 FR 69870, that solicited public comment for a period of 30 days. The Office of Management and Budget approved the Section 232 documents under the Paperwork Reduction Act in March 2013, and the approval was announced by notice published in the
Following issuance of the March 14, 2013, notice, lenders and other parties that would be involved in upcoming Section 232 program transactions stated that the delayed approval presented barriers to full compliance with some of the requirements in the revised Section 232 regulations that would become applicable on April 9, 2013. The affected parties involved in upcoming financing or refinancing of a loan to be insured under Section 232 advised that they have already expended substantial time and expense in preparing the transaction based on reasonable reliance on the previously applicable Section 232 documents.
Given that the delayed approval of the Section 232 documents has caused difficulties for parties involved in upcoming Section 232 healthcare facility transactions to comply with the updated requirements in the Section 232 regulations because of the April 9, 2013, applicability date, this final rule changes the applicability date to July 12, 2013. An additional delayed applicability date of over 90 days following publication of this final rule should allow parties involved in Section 232 healthcare facility transactions to prepare for such transactions based on the new Section 232 regulations and related Section 232 documents.
In general, HUD publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with HUD's regulations on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. Part 10, however, provides in § 10.1 for exceptions from that general rule where HUD finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when the prior public procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.”
HUD finds that good cause exists to publish this rule for effect without first soliciting public comment because prior public comment would be contrary to the public interest. HUD's Section 232 program plays an important role in today's economy as the need for residential care facilities has increased and requests to FHA to provide mortgage insurance for such facilities also increased. By reducing the cost of capital needed by residential care facilities to finance the construction, renovation, acquisition, or refinancing of facilities, the Section 232 program helps to improve access to quality healthcare and decrease overall healthcare costs.
Affected parties involved in upcoming Section 232 transactions have advised that efforts to comply with the April 9, 2013, applicability date would result in a delay in completion of a Section 232 transaction and considerable increased expense due to delay. Given the need for quality and affordable care in many communities across the country, HUD recognizes that a delay in completion of a Section 232 transaction whether for acquisition or refinancing for a healthcare facility not only affects the parties involved in the transaction but the community in which the healthcare facility would be purchased, constructed, or refinanced. For this reason, HUD extends the applicability date in the September 7, 2012, final rule from April 9, 2013, to July 12, 2013.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment was made, in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) at issuance of the May 3, 2012, proposed rule. That finding remains applicable to this final rule amendment, and is available for public inspection as provided in the September 7, 2012, final rule.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either: (1) Imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or (2) preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
Fire prevention, Health facilities, Loan programs—health, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 232 of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715w; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is finalizing updates to the Code of Federal Regulations delegation tables to reflect the current delegation status of New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in Arizona, California, and Nevada.
This rule is effective on July 1, 2013 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 30, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0981, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Adrianne Borgia at (415) 972–3576,
Throughout this document, “we”, “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
Through this document, EPA is accomplishing the following objectives:
(1) Update the delegations tables in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 (40 CFR), Parts 60 and 61, to provide an accurate listing of the delegated New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and
(2) Clarify those authorities that EPA retains and are not granted to state or local agencies as part of NSPS or NESHAP delegation.
Today's action will update the delegation tables in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61, to allow easier access by the public to the status of delegations in various state or local jurisdictions.
The updated delegation tables will include the delegations approved in response to recent requests, as well as those previously granted. The tables are shown at the end of this document.
Recent requests for delegation that will be incorporated into the updated 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 tables are identified below. Each individual submittal identifies the specific NSPS and NESHAP for which delegation was requested. The requests have already been approved by letter and simply need to be included in the CFR tables.
Sections 111(c)(1) and 112(l) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, authorize the Administrator to delegate his or her authority for implementing and enforcing standards in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
Delegation grants a state or local agency the primary authority to implement and enforce federal standards. All required notifications and reports should be sent to the delegated state or local agency, as appropriate, with a copy to EPA Region IX. Acceptance of delegation constitutes agreement by the state or local agency to follow 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61, and EPA's test methods and continuous monitoring procedures.
In general, EPA does not delegate to state or local agencies the authority to make decisions that are likely to be nationally significant, or alter the stringency of the underlying standards. For a more detailed description of the authorities in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 that are retained by EPA, please see the proposed rule published on January 14, 2002 (67 FR 1676).
As additional assurance of national consistency, state and local agencies must send to EPA Region IX Enforcement Division's Air Section Chief a copy of any written decisions made pursuant to the following delegated authorities:
• Applicability determinations that state a source is not subject to a rule or requirement;
• approvals or determination of construction, reconstruction, or modification;
• minor or intermediate site-specific changes to test methods or monitoring requirements; or
• site-specific changes or waivers of performance testing requirements.
For decisions that require EPA review and approval (for example, major changes to monitoring requirements), EPA intends to make determinations in a timely manner.
In some cases, the standards themselves specify that specific provisions cannot be delegated. State and local agencies should review each individual standard for this information.
EPA retains independent authority to enforce the standards and regulations of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
Today's document serves to notify the public that EPA is updating the 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 tables for Arizona, California, and Nevada to codify recent delegations of NSPS and NESHAPS as authorized under Sections 111(c)(1) and 112(1)(l) of the Clean Air Act.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve delegation requests that comply with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. Sections 7411(c) and 7412(l). Thus, in reviewing delegation submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 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. Section 3501 et seq.);
• 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. Section 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. Section 1501 et seq.);
• 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. Section 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the delegations are not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 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. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 appropriate circuit by July 1, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
__
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Delegations for Amador County Air Pollution Control District, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and Butte County Air Quality Management District are shown in the following table:
(v) Delegations for Modoc Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District and North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District are shown in the following table:
(vii) * * *
(viii) * * *
(4) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(9) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Delegations for Amador County Air Pollution Control District, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and Butte County Air Quality Management District are shown in the following table:
(E) Delegations for Modoc Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, and North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District are shown in the following table:
(iv) Nevada. The following table identifies delegations for Nevada:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is amending its regulations to add provisions allowing the BLM to temporarily segregate from the operation of the public land laws, by publication of a
This rule is effective May 30, 2013.
Ray Brady at (202) 912–7312 for information relating to the BLM's renewable energy program or the substance of this final rule or Ian Senio at (202) 912–7440 for information relating to the rulemaking process generally. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to contact the above individuals.
On April 26, 2011 (76 FR 23230), the BLM published a proposed rule to amend the regulations found in 43 CFR subpart 2091, Segregation and Opening of Lands, and 43 CFR part 2800, Rights-of-Way Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701
The purpose of the proposed rule, the ITFR, and today's final rule is to allow for the orderly administration of the public lands associated with the BLM's consideration of renewable energy ROWs. As explained below, the BLM seeks to avoid the delays and uncertainty that could result from encumbrances placed on lands after a wind or solar energy generation ROW application has been filed or after the BLM has identified an area for such applications, but before the BLM is able to make a decision on any such ROW. While such situations are not common, they can be disruptive to the processing of a wind or solar energy ROW application. Today's action eliminates the potential for these conflicts and brings a higher level of certainty to the BLM's management of the lands in question. The BLM requested public comments on the proposed and ITFR rulemakings during a 60-day comment period. Those comment periods closed on June 27, 2011. You can find the discussion of comments and the BLM's responses in the Discussion of Public Comments section of this rule.
Segregations under this rule take effect immediately upon the BLM's publication of a notice in the
Segregations have been held to be “reasonably related” to the BLM's broad authority to issue rules related to “the orderly administration of the public land laws,”
This rule is necessitated by the Administration's priority efforts to facilitate and promote the development of renewable energy on public lands and the potential for the location of mining claims to impede the BLM's ability to carry out its congressional and Executive mandates. In Section 211 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (119 Stat. 660, Aug. 8, 2005) (EPAct), Congress declared that before 2015, the Secretary of the Interior should seek to have approved non-hydropower renewable energy projects on public lands with a capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity.
After passage of the EPAct, then Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne issued several orders emphasizing the importance of renewable energy development on public lands. On January 16, 2009, then Secretary Kempthorne issued Secretarial Order 3283, “Enhancing Renewable Energy Development on the Public Lands,” which states that its purpose is to “facilitate the Department's efforts to achieve the goal Congress established in Section 211 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to approve non-hydropower renewable energy projects on the public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity by 2015.” The Order also declared that “the development of renewable energy resources on the public lands will increase domestic energy production, provide alternatives to traditional energy resources, and enhance the energy security of the United States.”
Shortly thereafter, then Secretary Ken Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3285, “Renewable Energy Development by the Department of the Interior” (Mar. 11, 2009), as amended by Order 3285A1 (Feb. 22, 2010), which reemphasized the development of renewable energy as a priority for the Department of the Interior (Department). This Order states: “Encouraging the production, development, and delivery of renewable energy is one of the Department's highest priorities. Agencies and bureaus within the Department will work collaboratively with each other, and with other Federal agencies, departments, states, local communities, and private landowners to encourage the timely and responsible development of renewable energy and associated transmission while protecting and enhancing the Nation's water, wildlife, and other natural resources.”
Separate from these specific directives related to renewable energy, FLPMA directs the BLM to manage the public lands for multiple uses, which means giving consideration to a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that account for long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources, such as recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife, fish, and natural, scenic, scientific, and historic values. In some instances, various uses may present conflicts. For example, a mining claim located within a proposed ROW for a utility-scale solar energy generation facility could impede the BLM's ability to process the ROW application because under the Surface Resources Act (30 U.S.C. 601
The BLM previously lacked regulations specifically authorizing segregation in order to maintain the status quo on lands during the period between when it first publicly announced the receipt of a wind or solar energy generation ROW application or identified an area for such applications, and when it made a final decision on a wind or solar energy ROW. As a result, and unless there was another withdrawal or segregation, the public lands subject to or identified for such applications remained open to appropriation under the public land laws, including location and entry under the Mining Law. This situation creates the potential for resource use conflicts. In comparison, the BLM does not permit new encumbrances on lands proposed for exchange or sale after the exchange or sale is publicly announced, but before it is completed.
For example, over the past five years, the BLM has processed 21 solar and wind energy development ROW applications (13 solar and 8 wind). New mining claims were located on the public lands described in two of these applications after they were publicly announced, but prior to any final decision by the BLM. Similarly, over the past two years, based on mining claim filings with the BLM, 437 new mining claims were located within wind energy ROW application areas in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming after those areas, consisting of approximately 20.6 million acres, were identified by the BLM in the 2005 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Wind Energy Development (Wind PEIS) (70 FR 36651). Also, 216 new mining claims were located within solar energy ROW application areas after those areas were identified as Solar Energy Zones in the 2012 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States (Solar PEIS) (77 FR 44267). In the BLM's experience, some of these mining claims are likely to be valid and/or filed without consideration of the pending ROW application, but others are likely to be speculative and not located for mining purposes. The latter are likely filed for no purpose other than to provide a means for the mining claimant to compel payment from the ROW applicant or grantee in exchange for relinquishing the mining claim. While it is relatively easy and inexpensive to locate a mining claim because a mining claim location requires no prior approval from the BLM, it can be difficult, time-consuming, and costly to extinguish a claim.
The location of a new mining claim during the BLM's review of a ROW application could interfere with the administration of the public lands because it could, on a case-by-case basis, result in applicants' modifying their proposals for their use and occupancy of the public lands. This is because under the Surface Resources Act a ROW grantee cannot materially interfere with prospecting, mining, or processing operations, or reasonably incidental use on a mining claim. Therefore, a ROW applicant may choose to modify its application in response to subsequently-located mining claims or relocate its proposed surface use to avoid potential conflicts with the claims. Such modifications or relocations could increase the BLM's processing time and costs for the ROW application if those changes require the BLM to undertake any additional or supplemental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
By allowing the BLM to temporarily segregate public lands subject to a wind or solar energy generation facility ROW application or identified for such applications, this final rule provides the BLM with the necessary regulatory authority to minimize conflicts between new mining claims and future wind or solar energy generation facility ROW
The BLM received nine comments on the proposed rule. Four comments came from mining associations and opposed the rule; three comments came from power associations or companies and supported the rule, and the State of Alaska sent comments from two different program offices, neither of which supported the rule as proposed and suggested changes. Below is a discussion of the significant issues raised by commenters.
Another commenter stated that the rule presumes the existence of land use conflicts where none may exist. This is incorrect. The rule does not presume conflicts exist, but rather the purpose of the rule is to prevent land use conflicts from arising. If there is no potential for conflict, the segregation authority available under this rule will not be exercised. The commenter points out that the BLM has other tools to address nuisance mining claims located after the filing of a ROW application (i.e., those located for the sole purpose of extracting something from the ROW applicant). The commenter contends that existing regulations permit BLM to address such claims through validity examinations, which would permit BLM to declare a claim invalid under certain circumstances. However, validity examinations take considerable time and expense and could delay important energy projects if they were the tool used to address all of the claims located after a proposed wind or solar energy ROW application is publicly announced by the BLM, but before the BLM is able to complete its review and take action on that application. The purpose of segregations under this rule is to allow the BLM to maintain the status quo while it processes a ROW application, in order to try to avoid delays in energy development that has been prioritized by both Congress and the Department.
Finally, one commenter proposed amending section 2091.3–1(e)(1), as proposed by the BLM, to read as follows:
In addition, the Bureau of Land Management may also segregate public lands that it identifies, in conjunction with the preparation or revision of a resource management plan or other planning process, for potential rights of way for electrical generation from wind or solar sources. The identification of such land will involve consultation with the public and opportunity for public comment.
The comment suggests that this would clarify the rule by showing that:
(1) The intent of the rule is narrow;
(2) Public participation is part of the process; and
(3) Planning is part of the process.
While the BLM agrees with these three points, the BLM made no changes in the final rule in response to this comment. As drafted, the rule is narrow; it applies only to public lands either covered by a ROW application or lands that the BLM specifically identifies for such applications. In addition, the suggested revisions are already part of the BLM's planning regulations (43 CFR subpart 1610) and thus would be duplicative if added to today's final rule. Public lands available for wind and solar energy generation are identified through the BLM's land use planning process, which includes a robust public participation process.
One commenter asserted that the rule is an over-reaction to a few bad actors. As explained below, the final rule is narrow. It only limits the location of mining claims after the segregation under this rule is announced and does not affect previously located claims. Moreover, segregations under this rule are not automatic; the BLM will only effect segregations on a case-by-case basis when it determines segregation to be necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands.
One commenter stated that the BLM implies that it will use significant resources in its planning process for wind and solar to support “sweeping withdrawals using wind and solar as an excuse.” The BLM does not intend to conduct sweeping withdrawals related to wind and solar energy ROW grants. First, the BLM's withdrawal authority and regulations are not affected by this rule. Second, as explained above in response to the comment regarding extending the segregations, the temporary segregations authorized by the rule achieve the BLM's objectives related to the orderly processing of such applications, thereby making withdrawals unnecessary. History indicates that the BLM has not proposed sweeping withdrawals. Also, as noted above, the BLM will exercise its authority under this rule on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the BLM determines that the potential for conflict associated with a particular ROW is low, then the BLM will not segregate the land. Moreover, the 2005 Wind PEIS and the 2012 Solar PEIS already contain a comprehensive analysis of areas with potential for wind or solar energy development, contrary to the commenter's suggestion that significant additional planning resources will need to be devoted to such efforts in the near term.
Another commenter voiced a concern that the segregations would take place without any opportunity for public input and that the rule should require the BLM to explain, in writing, why
Finally, one commenter pointed out that solar panel fields will prevent other land uses and that this would conflict with the FLPMA's mandate to manage public lands for multiple use. The commenter goes on to say that the proposed rule improperly singles out locatable minerals. The BLM agrees that solar panels may prevent some uses of the same piece of land during the same period of time, but the BLM has discretion as to what activities it allows on any parcel of land at any particular time. FLPMA's multiple use mandate does not require all uses to be permitted on every acre. Thus, the final rule does not impermissibly single out locatable minerals; it simply gives the BLM the ability to temporarily segregate lands identified for or covered by a wind or solar energy ROW application from the operation of the Mining Law because the location of a mining claim does not require BLM approval and could interfere with the BLM's processing of such ROW application. The final rule was not revised as a result of this comment.
Another commenter believes the four-year limit for a segregation is too short. It cited its own application which is currently the subject of an environmental impact statement (EIS) having a current schedule lasting four years and two months. The commenter asked that the final rule extend the time period to three years and allow an additional three-year extension. It based its timeframe on the BLM's Wind Energy Development Policy (IM 2009–043), which establishes an initial three-year time period for energy site testing and monitoring. The commenter goes on to say that the segregations should continue for the term of the ROW grant if the BLM approves the project. In addition, it urges the BLM to not approve discretionary mineral activities on public lands overlain by a renewable energy ROW and to continue the segregation so as to prohibit entry under the Mining Law after the ROW grant is issued.
The BLM believes that the two-year timeframe, with the possibility of a one-time extension, for segregations under this rule provides sufficient time for the agency to make decisions on most applications. With respect to the commenter's suggestion that the rule allow for segregations to continue after the ROW grant is issued, the BLM notes two responses. First, after the BLM issues a solar or wind energy ROW grant, the ROW grant holder has a priority right over any subsequently located mining claim(s), which makes continuing the segregation during the term of a ROW grant unnecessary. With respect to discretionary mineral activities under the MLA or Materials Act, after issuance of a wind or solar ROW grant, the BLM would not authorize such activities for lands covered by such a ROW grant unless the activities will not have an adverse impact on the pre-existing ROW grant. Second, segregations are by definition temporary. The continuation of the segregation urged by the commenter would be tantamount to a withdrawal, which is beyond the scope of this rule and subject to other legal authorities and requirements.
Another commenter asked the BLM to narrow the rule so that segregations are allowed only when mining claims are located after the application. Specifically, this group asked that there be no segregation for claims “that were located prior to the submission of a[n] application * * *.” In other words, the group requests that where mining claims had been filed prior to the filing of a ROW renewable energy application that segregations not be allowed. No changes to the final rule were necessary as a result of this comment because, as explained above, segregations under this rule would not affect valid mining claims located prior to the publication of a segregation notice in the
One commenter suggested that the BLM narrow the scope of the rule by using stipulations rather than segregations to prevent the filing of mining claims. As explained above, segregations under this rule would not affect valid existing mining claims. Moreover, the commenter did not identify a mechanism by which the BLM could impose stipulations that would address potential resource use conflicts created by mining claims that are located after a wind or solar energy application is announced, as the location of such claims occurs without BLM approval. The same commenter also views this rule as inconsistent with the BLM's 2006 Energy and Non-energy Mineral Policy. However, the 2006 policy simply expresses a preference that lands remain open to the location of mining claims unless actions closing lands are clearly justified.
To the extent the commenter is referring to the circumstances where a new Plan of Operations or Notice for a prior mining claim in a segregated area is filed with the BLM during the two-year segregation period, the BLM has the discretion under the surface management regulations (43 CFR 3809.100(a)) to require the preparation of a mineral examination report before it processes the Plan of Operations or accepts the filed Notice. With respect to any particular Plan of Operation or Notice, the BLM would separately determine, on a case-by-case basis and consistent with the requirements of the surface management regulations, whether to require a validity determination for such Plan or Notice. If the BLM requires a validity examination, the operator is responsible for the cost of the examination and report. However, knowing this it possible that operators would choose not to file a Notice or Plan of Operations during the segregation period for existing claims in segregated areas in order to avoid facing a validity examination, which in fact appears to be what has happened: For FYs 2009 and 2010, 19 Plans of Operations (10 in solar application areas and 9 in wind application areas) and 50 Notices (12 in solar application areas and 38 in wind application areas) were filed with the BLM. No Plans of Operation or Notices were filed in FYs 2011 and 2012, after the ITFR was implemented. Moreover, the evaluation of a Plan of Operations or Notice for a mining claim filed before a segregation takes place would be no different from the evaluation of such a claim where a segregation did not exist. Therefore, the BLM has not modified the final rule in response to this comment.
Two commenters pointed out that ANILCA withdrawals exceeding 5,000 acres require congressional approval within a year. One of the commenters added that segregation is the equivalent of a withdrawal and requires the same congressional action as a withdrawal. These assertions are incorrect. Segregations under this rule are not withdrawals. Temporary segregations are different from withdrawals in that segregations prevent certain uses of public lands for a short period of time, not to exceed four years for any type of segregation, while withdrawals are generally for longer terms (generally 20 years) and must be approved by an Assistant Secretary or a higher ranked position within the Department.
This rule revises 43 CFR 2091.3–1 and 2804.25 by adding language that allows the BLM to segregate lands if the BLM determines it is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. This authority to segregate lands is limited to lands included in a pending or future wind or solar energy ROW application, or public lands the BLM identifies for such applications. If segregated under this rule, such lands, during the limited segregation period, will not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law, but would remain open under the MLA and the Materials Act, subject to valid existing rights.
The final rule does not differ from the proposed rule or the ITFR in any substantive way. Some language in the final rule has been revised to shorten sentences to make the rule easier to read and understand and to cite statutes already discussed in the proposal and ITFR. Because today's rule replaces the ITFR, the ITFR's provisions limiting segregations to two years (see sections 2091.3–1(e)(3) and 2804.25(e)(3)) are no longer necessary and have been removed from the final rule. See the discussion below of the authority for a BLM State Director to extend a segregation, with sufficient justification, for an additional period not to exceed two years.
Segregations under this rule end after two years (unless extended for up to two additional years) and the lands automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws. Segregations under this rule may end sooner if, prior to the end of the two-year period:
(1) The BLM issues a decision on the wind or solar energy ROW application associated with the segregation; or
(2) The BLM publishes a
(3) This final rule allows a BLM State Director to extend the segregation for up to an additional two years if a BLM State Director determines and documents in writing, prior to the expiration of the segregation, that an extension of the segregation is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. If the State Director determines that an extension is necessary, the BLM will publish an extension notice in the
This rule is not a significant regulatory action
The actual number of claimants affected will likely be less than the number of claims filed, because a single claimant typically files and holds multiple mining claims. Of the new mining claims filed within the wind energy ROW application areas in FYs 2009 through 2012, there was an average of about eight mining claims per claimant. Assuming that there was nothing unique about the number of claims and distribution of claims per claimant for those years, the BLM estimates that 14 entities would be potentially precluded from filing new mining claims on lands that would be segregated in the future within the identified wind energy ROW application areas under this rule. For these entities, the economic impacts of the segregation are the delay in when they could locate their mining claims and a potential delay in the development of such claims because such development would be subject to any ROW grants issued during the temporary segregation period. However, a meaningful estimate of the value of such delays is difficult to quantify given the available data as it depends on commercial viability of any individual claim. Also, the location of a mining claim is an early step in a long process that may or may not ultimately result in revenue generating activity for the claimant.
The other situation in which entities might be affected by the segregation provision is if a new Plan of Operations or Notice for a prior mining claim is filed with the BLM during a two-year segregation. In such a situation, the BLM has the discretion under the Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR subpart 3809) to require the preparation of a mineral examination report before it processes the Plan of Operations or accepts the filed Notice. If required, the operator is responsible for paying the cost of the examination and report. However, the evaluation of a plan of operations or notice for a mining claim filed before a segregation takes place would be no different than the evaluation of such a claim where a segregation did not exist.
In 2009 and 2010, nine Plans of Operations and 38 Notices were filed with the BLM on claims located within wind ROW application areas. No plans or notices were filed in 2011 or 2012. Assuming; (1) a quarter of those filings were on lands segregated under this rule, (2) the number of Plan and Notice filings received between FYs 2009 and 2012 is representative of the number of filings that might occur in the future on segregated lands, and (3) the BLM required mineral examination reports to determine claim validity on all Plans and Notices filed on lands that may be segregated, the BLM estimates that two entities might be affected by this rule over a two-year period.
The actual number of claimants affected will likely be less than 50 because a single claimant typically locates and holds multiple mining claims. Of the existing mining claims located within solar energy ROW application areas, there was an average of about eight mining claims per claimant. Assuming that there was nothing unique about the number and distribution of claims per claimant, the BLM estimates six to seven entities would potentially be precluded from locating new mining claims on lands segregated within the identified solar energy ROW application areas under the rule change. For these entities, the economic impacts of the segregation would be the delay in when they could locate their mining claim and a potential delay in the development of such claim because such development would be subject to any ROW grants issued during the temporary segregation period. However, a meaningful estimate of the value of such delays is difficult to quantify given the available data as it depends on the commercial viability of any individual claim and the fact that the location of a mining claim is an early step in a long process that may or may not ultimately result in revenue generating activity for the claimant.
As with wind, the other situation in which entities might be affected by these segregation provisions is when a new Plan of Operations or Notice for an existing mining claim is filed with the BLM during a two-year segregation for a solar project. In such a situation, the BLM has the discretion under the Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR subpart 3809) to require a mineral examination report before it approves the Plan of Operations or accepts the filed Notice. If required, the operator is responsible to pay the cost of the examination and report. However, the evaluation of a plan of operations or notice for a mining claim filed before a segregation takes place would be no different than the evaluation of such a claim where a segregation did not exist.
For FYs 2009 and 2010, 10 Plans of Operations and 12 Notices were filed with the BLM for existing claims within solar ROW application areas. No Plans of Operation or Notices were filed in FYs 2011 and 2012. Assuming: (1) A quarter of those filings in 2009 and 2010
It is not possible to estimate the number of future ROWs for wind or solar energy developments that could be filed on areas identified as having potential for either of these sources of energy. This is because there are many variables that could have an impact on such filings. Such variables include: the quantity and sustainability of wind at any one site, the intensity and quantity of available sunlight, the capability of obtaining financing for either wind or solar energy projects, the proximity of transmission facilities that could be used to carry the power generated from a specific wind or solar energy project, and the topography of the property involved. The number of mining claims would also be based on speculation as to the mineral potential of a given area, access to markets, potential for profitability, and a host of other geologic factors, such as type of mineral, depth of the mineral beneath the surface, quantity and quality of the mineral, and other such considerations. We used an analysis of activity in 2009 and 2010 to predict the amount of activity that would occur or be prevented in 2011 and 2012. The actual activity in 2011 and 2012, when the ITFR was in effect, was much less than predicted. However, we consider our use of the 2009 and 2010 data to be a reasonable basis for the economic impacts of this rule.
Based on this analysis, the BLM concludes that this rule does not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It does not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This rule does not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs, or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues.
The BLM has determined that this rule is administrative in nature and involves only procedural changes addressing segregation requirements. Temporary segregations under this rule would result in no new surface disturbing activities and, therefore, would have no effect on ecological or cultural resources. Potential effects from the wind and/or solar ROWs associated with such segregations would be analyzed as part of the site-specific NEPA analysis for those activities. In promulgating this rule, the government is conducting routine and continuing government business of an administrative nature. As result, it is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.210(f), (i). The rule does not meet any of the extraordinary circumstances criteria for categorical exclusions listed at 43 CFR 46.215. Under Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department, the term “categorical exclusion” means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which has been found to have no such effect on procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
The Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended, (5 U.S.C. 601–612), to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulations to determine the extent to which there is anticipated to be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The BLM anticipates that this rule could potentially affect a few entities that might otherwise have located new mining claims on public lands covered by a wind or solar energy facility ROW applications either currently pending or filed in the future. Based on the economic analysis prepared for this rule, the BLM further anticipates that most of these entities would be small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration; however, as explained in this preamble and in the proposed rule, the BLM does not expect the potential impact to be significant. Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A copy of the analysis that supports this determination is available at the office listed under the
For the same reasons as discussed under the Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review section of this preamble, this rule is not a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). That is, it will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; it will not result in major cost or price increases for consumers, industries, government agencies, or regions; and it will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector of $100 million or more per year; nor will it have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments. The rule will not impose requirements on any of these entities. Therefore, the BLM does not need to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule is not a government action that interferes with constitutionally protected property rights. This rule sets out a process which could be used to temporarily segregate, by publication of a notice in the
The rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, or the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the levels of government. It will not apply to states or local governments or state or local government entities. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that this rule does not include policies that have tribal implications. This rule applies exclusively to lands administered by the BLM. It is not applicable to and has no bearing on trust or Indian lands or resources, or on lands for which title is held in fee status by Indian tribes, or on lands held in trust for the benefit of tribes or individual Indians that are managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
In developing this final rule, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Public Law 106–554).
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined that this rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use, including a shortfall in supply, price increase, or increased use of foreign supplies. The BLM's authority to segregate lands under this rule is of a temporary nature for the purpose of encouraging the orderly administration of public lands, including the generation of electricity from wind and solar resources on the public lands. Any increase in energy production as a result of this rule from wind or solar sources is not easily quantified, but the rule is expected to relieve obstacles and hindrances to energy development on public lands.
In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that this rule will not impede the facilitation of cooperative conservation. The rule takes appropriate account of and respects the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; properly accommodates local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and provides that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.
The rule does not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The principal author of this rule is Jeff Holdren, Realty Specialist, Division of Lands and Realty, assisted by the Division of Regulatory Affairs, Washington Office, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, and the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior.
Airports; Alaska; Coal; Grazing lands; Indian lands; Public lands; Public lands—classification; Public lands—mineral resources; Public lands—withdrawal; Seashores.
Communications; Electric power; Highways and roads; Penalties; Pipelines; Public lands—rights-of-way; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities stated below, the BLM proposes to amend 43 CFR parts 2090 and 2800 as follows:
43 U.S.C. 1740.
(e)(1) The Bureau of Land Management may segregate, if it finds it necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands, lands included in a right-of-way application under 43 CFR subpart 2804 for the generation of electrical energy from wind or solar sources. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management may also segregate lands that it identifies for potential rights-of-way for electricity generation from wind or solar sources when initiating a competitive process for solar or wind development on particular lands. Upon segregation, such lands will not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law of 1872, (30 U.S.C. 22
(2) The effective date of segregation is the date of publication of the notice in the
(i) When the BLM issues a decision granting, granting with modifications, or denying the application for a right-of-way;
(ii) Automatically at the end of the segregation period stated in the
(iii) Upon publication of a
(3) The segregation period may not exceed 2 years from the date of publication in the
43 U.S.C. 1733, 1740, 1763, and 1764.
(e)(1) The BLM may segregate, if it finds it necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands, lands included in a right-of-way application under 43 CFR subpart 2804 for the generation of electrical energy from wind or solar sources. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management may also segregate lands that it identifies for potential rights-of-way for electricity generation from wind or solar sources when initiating a competitive process for solar or wind development on particular lands. Upon segregation, such lands would not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22
(2) The effective date of segregation is the date of publication of the notice in the
(i) When the BLM issues a decision granting, granting with modifications, or denying the application for a right-of-way;
(ii) Automatically at the end of the segregation period stated in the
(iii) Upon publication of a
(3) The segregation period may not exceed 2 years from the date of publication in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; emergency measures extended.
NMFS issues this temporary rule to extend the effectiveness of the increase of the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for yellowtail snapper implemented by a temporary rule published by NMFS on November 7, 2012. The commercial ACL for yellowtail snapper of 1,596,510 lb (724,165 kg), round weight, will be extended for up to an additional 186 days, until permanent measures are implemented, as requested by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). The intent of this temporary rule is to ensure the commercial ACL for yellowtail snapper is based on the best scientific information available and to help achieve optimum yield (OY) for the yellowtail snapper resource.
The effective period for the temporary rule published at 77 FR 66744, November 7, 2012, is extended from May 6, 2013, through November 28, 2013, unless NMFS publishes a superseding document in the
Electronic copies of documents supporting this temporary rule may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Kate Michie, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
NMFS and the Council manage the snapper-grouper fishery, which includes yellowtail snapper, off the southern Atlantic states under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the
At its September 2012 meeting, the Council requested that NMFS promulgate emergency regulations to increase the commercial ACL for yellowtail snapper based on the results of the May 2012 stock assessment conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) which indicated yellowtail snapper are not overfished or experiencing overfishing. Results of the stock assessment suggested that the acceptable biological catch (ABC) could increase, which could allow an increase in the commercial ACL resulting in positive social and economic benefits to commercial fishermen and dealers. The assessment was reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) on October 10, 2012. Based on the stock assessment conducted by the FWRI, the Council's request and the SSC's ABC recommendation, and the current commercial sector's allocation, NMFS promulgated a temporary rule on November 7, 2012, to increase the commercial ACL for yellowtail snapper from 1,142,589 lb (518,270 kg) to 1,596,510 lb (724,165 kg), round weight (77 FR 66744). The temporary rule was implemented in time to avoid triggering the commercial accountability measure (AM) in 2012, which would have unnecessarily prohibited commercial harvest and possession of yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic. The temporary rule was determined to be necessary to preserve a significant economic opportunity that otherwise might be foregone and to help achieve OY for the fishery.
The temporary rule published on November 7, 2012, will expire on May 6, 2013. The Council has developed Regulatory Amendment 15 to the FMP to implement the increased commercial ACL for yellowtail snapper on a permanent basis. However, this regulatory amendment, if implemented, will not be effective before the 180-day temporary rule expires. Therefore, the Council requested an extension of the temporary rule at its March 2013 Council meeting, to continue the increase of the commercial ACL for yellowtail snapper while the rulemaking for Regulatory Amendment 15 is completed. This temporary rule extension will ensure that the commercial ACL for yellowtail snapper is based on the best scientific information available and will help to achieve OY for yellowtail snapper while avoiding an unnecessary closure for the commercial sector.
Section 305(c)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the extension of an emergency regulation for up to 186 days, provided that the public has had an opportunity to comment on the initial emergency regulation and the Council is actively preparing a plan amendment or proposed regulations to address the emergency on a permanent basis. NMFS solicited public comment on the November 7, 2012, temporary rule, and received one comment from a fisheries association that supported the temporary rule, development of Regulatory Amendment 15, and the extension of the temporary rule. No other comments were received.
This action is issued pursuant to section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1855(c). The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined that the extension of this temporary rule is necessary to preserve a significant economic opportunity for the commercial yellowtail snapper component of the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. The Council developed Regulatory Amendment 15 to the FMP to establish the increase in the commercial ACL for yellowtail snapper on a permanent basis and has submitted the amendment to NMFS.
This temporary rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This temporary rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule extension. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment would be contrary to the public interest. Failure to extend the increase in the commercial ACL for yellowtail snapper would result in the commercial ACL not being based on the best scientific information available, which would be contrary to National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Failure to extend the temporary rule may also result in the commercial sector being unnecessarily prohibited from harvesting and possessing yellowtail snapper in 2013 due to a closure, which would create adverse economic impacts for those dependent upon the commercial harvest of yellowtail snapper, especially in the Florida Keys. Extension of the temporary rule would allow for continued commercial harvest under the increased commercial ACL while the emergency regulations are being addressed on a permanent basis through Regulatory Amendment 15 to the FMP. This extension will give fishermen the opportunity to achieve OY for yellowtail snapper, in accordance with National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
For the reasons listed above, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of the action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Emergency temporary rule; interim measures; request for comments.
NMFS implements a temporary emergency action that suspends existing monkfish possession limits for vessels issued both a Federal limited access Northeast multispecies permit and a limited access monkfish Category C or D permit that are fishing under a monkfish day-at-sea in the monkfish Northern Fishery Management
This rule is effective at 0001 hr on May 1, 2013, through October 27, 2013. Comments must be received by May 30, 2013.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2012–0240, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which consists of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), public comments and responses, and the summary of impacts and alternatives contained in the Classification section of the preamble of this final rule. Copies of the supporting biological, economic, and social impact analysis for this action are contained in the environmental assessment (EA) prepared for this rule, and may be found at the following Internet address:
Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281–9141, fax (978) 281–9135.
NMFS developed a proposed rule to implement emergency measures in the monkfish fishery based on a request for emergency action by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). The proposed rule published in the
The following describes the measures implemented by this interim final rule. NMFS may renew, modify, or extend these measures after October 27, 2013 for up to an additional 185 days (i.e., through the end of FY 2013 on April 30, 2014) through notice consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. If NMFS does not renew or modify these measures, the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) monkfish possession limits implemented by Framework Adjustment (FW) 7 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) on October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66192), would remain in effect for the rest of FY 2013.
This emergency action suspends existing monkfish possession limits for vessels issued a Federal limited access monkfish Category C or D permit (i.e., those also issued a Federal limited access NE multispecies permit) that are fishing under a monkfish day-at-sea (DAS) in the NFMA during FY 2013. A vessel operator that starts a trip under a groundfish DAS and then declares that he/she is fishing under a monkfish DAS prior to returning to port is also exempted from the monkfish possession limits. Existing monkfish possession limits for vessels issued a limited access monkfish Category A or B permit and fishing under only a monkfish DAS; vessels issued a limited access monkfish Category C or D permit fishing that are not fishing under a monkfish DAS; or vessels issued an open access monkfish Category E permit (i.e., vessels that catch monkfish while targeting other fisheries) remain the same, as specified in Table 1. In addition, the overfishing level, acceptable biological catch level, ACL, ACT, and TAL remain 19,557 mt, 7,592 mt, 6,567 mt, and 5,854 mt, respectively, as implemented in either Amendment 5 (May 25, 2011; 76 FR 30265) or FW 7 to the Monkfish FMP.
These measures differ from those requested by the NEFMC in two ways. First, the suspension of existing monkfish possession limits applies to both groundfish sector and common pool vessels instead of just sector vessels. Suspending monkfish possession limits for both groundfish sector and common pool vessels is necessary to ensure that the emergency measures fairly and equitably allocate fishing privileges among relevant affected entities (i.e., those affected by substantial reductions in the FY 2013 groundfish ACLs), consistent with National Standard 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the intended purpose and need for this action. Second, this action exempts only monkfish Category C or D vessels fishing under a monkfish DAS in the NFMA from the existing monkfish possession limits. This is different than the measures originally requested by the NEFMC and proposed for this action in that it would not exempt monkfish Category C or D vessels fishing under a groundfish DAS in the NFMA from the existing monkfish possession limits. We made this latter change in response to public comments to ensure that potential effort shifts do not result in unanticipated adverse impacts to the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA) monkfish resource or associated fishing communities.
Upon further consideration, we concluded that the originally proposed emergency measures could substantially increase the effective effort on monkfish by inadvertently and unintentionally creating incentives for vessels to fish for monkfish using readily available groundfish DAS in the NFMA, and then using their allocated monkfish DAS to fish for monkfish in the SFMA. Under current regulations, a vessel may land more than the incidental amount of monkfish only if fishing under a groundfish or monkfish DAS. Because sectors are not required to use a groundfish DAS when fishing for groundfish stocks, groundfish DAS are readily available, and can be easily acquired for little cost, particularly in the NFMA. In conjunction with the fact that a majority of monkfish Category C and D vessels are participating in sectors during recent FYs, the proposed measures could create incentives for such vessels to acquire and use a large supply of groundfish DAS to catch unlimited amounts of monkfish without using a monkfish DAS in the NFMA. Such vessels could then save their monkfish DAS to fish in areas of the SFMA where groundfish DAS are not required to be used. Thus, fishing effort on monkfish could be substantially increased in both the NFMA and SFMA under the proposed measures. This is substantially different than past fishing practices, and could possibly result in monkfish landings that exceed the SFMA monkfish total allowable landings (TAL) amount during FY 2013. Because the Monkfish FMP is jointly managed by the NEFMC and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), the final measures implemented by this interim final rule reflect a compromise between the interests expressed by each Council by providing for greater opportunities to land monkfish in the NFMA, as advocated by the NEFMC, and helping minimize the potential effort shifts into the SFMA, as suggested by the MAFMC.
We expect these final measures to more closely achieve, but not exceed, the FY 2013 TAL for monkfish in the NFMA, resulting in monkfish landings of approximately 5,336 mt during FY 2013, or 91 percent of the FY 2013 monkfish TAL in the NFMA. This represents an increase of 401,873 lb (182,286 kg) of monkfish landings compared to landings expected under the current possession limits.
This action authorizes the Regional Administrator to reinstate existing monkfish possession limits for limited access monkfish Category C and D vessels fishing under a monkfish DAS in the NFMA at any time through October 27, 2013 if available data indicate that the NFMA monkfish TAL or ACT may be exceeded during FY 2013. If such trip limits are reinstated, monkfish Category C and D vessels fishing in the NFMA under a monkfish DAS would be subject to monkfish possession limits of 1,250 lb (567 kg) tail weight and 600 lb (272 kg) tail weight per DAS, respectively, for the remainder of FY 2013. This discretion is necessary to ensure that unexpected changes in fishing behavior in response to this emergency action do not cause monkfish landings or catch, when discards are included, to exceed the FY 2013 NFMA monkfish TAL or annual catch target (ACT), respectively, and result in overfishing for NFMA monkfish. Any reinstatement of monkfish possession limits in the NFMA would be implemented consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
Twenty-five comments were received during the comment period on the proposed rule for emergency action from 14 individuals, 5 commercial fishing organizations, 2 state resource management agencies (Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) and the Maine Department of Marine Resources), 1 seafood processor group, 1 conservation organization, 1 fish dealer, and the MAFMC. One other comment was submitted via fax, but was unreadable because much of the middle of the comment was obscured by a black streak, leaving only the margins of the comment readable. Only comments that were applicable to the proposed measures, including the analyses used to support these measures, are addressed in this preamble. Overall, 15 commenters supported the proposed action, while 8 opposed it (the MAFMC and 2 vessel owners strongly opposed this action), with 2 other commenters not expressing a particular position on the proposed action.
Upon further consideration of public comment, we agree that the proposed action could provide incentives for vessels to change fishing behavior and shift effort in a manner that could increase the risk of overfishing monkfish in the SFMA. In particular, we concluded that the proposed action could encourage vessels to use cheap and readily-available groundfish DAS (particularly for sector vessels) to target monkfish in the NMFA, and save their allocated monkfish DAS to later target monkfish in the SFMA. To prevent this from occurring, this interim final rule exempts only monkfish Category C or D vessels using a monkfish DAS in the NFMA from the monkfish possession limits. Thus, fewer monkfish DAS are expected to be available to fish for monkfish in the SFMA as a result of the change in this final rule, because the monkfish DAS would be used to land more monkfish in the NFMA. This would reduce the potential for vessels to shift monkfish effort into the SFMA compared to the proposed action. Thus, measures implemented by this interim final rule provide greater control over resulting monkfish landings during FY 2013, and are likely to be more effective than the proposed measures at reducing the risk that either the NFMA or SFMA monkfish TALs will be exceeded during
Existing regulations enable vessels to use monkfish DAS in both the NFMA and the SFMA during the same fishing year. These interim final measures provide incentives to use those DAS in the NFMA during FY 2013 by requiring monkfish Category C and D vessels to use monkfish to be exempt from current monkfish possession limits in the NFMA. In contrast, the proposed measures provided no incentive to use monkfish DAS in the NFMA, and as noted above, may actually provide incentives for vessels to use readily available groundfish DAS to target monkfish in the NFMA and save all of their monkfish DAS to fish for monkfish in the SFMA as a means to maximize revenue from monkfish fishing opportunities during FY 2013. To have granted the Regional Administrator discretion to revise the monkfish possession limits in the SFMA in a manner similar to the authority to reinstate existing monkfish possession limits in the NFMA through this interim final rule would go beyond the purpose and need specified for this action. The purpose of this emergency action is to mitigate adverse impacts on groundfish vessels operating in the NFMA, and not to potentially create adverse impacts on the SFMA monkfish fishery because of effort shifts that otherwise would not have occurred. With the changes in measures implemented by this interim final rule, the risk that such impacts would occur has been reduced. Accordingly, the final measures reflect a compromise between the interests expressed by each Council by providing for greater opportunities to land monkfish in the NFMA, as advocated by the NEFMC, and helping minimize the potential effort shifts and into the SFMA and resulting impacts to the SFMA monkfish fishery, advocated by the MAFMC.
We believe that existing regulations adequately address monitoring and enforcement concerns raised by the commenters. Any vessel that fishes any part of a trip in the SFMA will continue to be subject to the SFMA monkfish possession limits, with any monkfish DAS used on such a trip counting against the 28 monkfish DAS limit that each vessel may use in the SFMA during FY 2013. Current monkfish regulations only require vessel operators to declare whether the vessel will fish any part of a particular trip in the SFMA via the vessel monitoring system (VMS) or interactive voice response (IVR) or call-in system. Alternatively, a vessel can obtain a letter of authorization, stating that the vessel will fish in the NFMA for a specified period of time.
We will continue to monitor and enforce vessel activity using existing area-declaration requirements, including VMS and IVR declarations, landings by areas reported on vessel trip reports (VTRs, or logbooks) and dealer reports, and other available data. Because all monkfish Category C and D vessels are also issued limited access NE multispecies permits, such vessels are required to submit VTRs on a weekly basis. In addition, because most monkfish Category C and D vessels are participating in groundfish sectors, we will also have weekly sector catch reports to document vessel activity and associated landings. Finally, since all groundfish vessels must use VMS, hourly positional data and intended vessel activity declarations will be available on a real-time basis for each trip. Collectively, these data sources provide the information necessary to characterize vessel operations and assist in monitoring monkfish landings during FY 2013.
Vessels using gillnet gear are subject to existing regulations developed to minimize interactions with protected species, especially marine mammals, including time and area closures for gillnets, and requirements to use pingers and weak links on gillnet gear. Existing measures attempt to proactively control fishing effort, and implement reactive measures should take (interactions with fishing gear) or mortality targets be exceeded. When complied with, these measures can be effective in reducing interactions with marine mammals. If they are not complied with, additional management measures may be necessary to prevent excessive takes of such species, as required by the ESA. Reduced groundfish ACLs during FY 2013, reductions in the number of active monkfish and groundfish vessels during recent years, and the ability of the Regional Administrator to reinstate monkfish possession limits as part of this action may limit the potential increase in fishing effort by some
The information on humpback whale takes cited by the environmental group includes news articles, personal communication, and a draft marine mammal stock assessment report. While the final stock assessment report was released on April 3, 2013, that report includes takes from multiple sources in multiple fisheries, including those outside the GOM and in Canadian waters, and are neither specific to the monkfish fishery nor the proposed emergency action. No additional scientific information that would more clearly illustrate the potential impact of the proposed action on marine mammals in general, or harbor porpoises or humpback whales specifically, was provided by the group in its comment. When developing management measures, we must rely on the best available scientific information, as required by National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and cannot rely upon draft reports, news articles, personal communications, or information that is not germane to the proposed action as the basis for such measures. The information used to analyze the impact of the proposed action represents the best scientific information available at this time. Staff in the NMFS Northeast Regional Office and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (with expertise on marine mammal interactions) reviewed this analysis, and supported its conclusions. Therefore, we disagree that the EA prepared for this action inappropriately minimized the likely impact on marine mammals, or that re-consultation under the ESA is necessary for humpback whales at this time. We will continue to monitor the takes of marine mammals, and will take any action required under the ESA once available scientific information warrants such action.
The latest monkfish stock assessment review (Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) 50 in 2010) continued to treat monkfish as two separate stocks, reflecting the distinct monkfish management units. However, the assessment noted that information on growth, maturity, and genetics provide some preliminary evidence that the monkfish resource is a unit stock. Recent tagging studies have shown monkfish movement from the NFMA to the SFMA, although a lack of return movement to the NFMA may be an artifact of the timing and location of tag releases. The assessment, however, highlighted the fact that recruitment patterns remain different between the two areas (one of the reasons offered for treating the stocks separately in earlier assessments). Due to indications that the northern and southern stocks may not be distinct, a model was run that treated monkfish as one stock. However, that model was not reviewed or accepted by the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC). The SSC reviewed SAW 50 and accepted it as the best available scientific information regarding monkfish stocks. Accordingly, we will continue to assess monkfish as two separate stocks until further scientific information concludes otherwise.
SAW 50 states that “catch rates may not reflect patterns of abundance,” because catch rates are influenced by changes to management measures, and that changes in data collections and uncertainty in defining a targeted versus an incidental monkfish trip make evaluating trends in catch rates difficult. Thus, catch per unit effort was not used in the model runs for SAW 50. The report for SAW 50 highlights the fact that catch rates on trips with fishery observers declined in the NFMA during 2003–2007, as the strong 1999 year class passed through the fishery. It also acknowledged that there was a lot of uncertainty with the status of monkfish, including a retrospective pattern that underestimated fishing mortality and overestimated biomass. Nonetheless, the SARC concluded that SAW 50 represents the best available scientific information and that NFMA monkfish was not overfished nor subject to overfishing as of FY 2009. This conclusion was confirmed for FY 2013 by the SSC's review of SAW 50 during the development of NFMA monkfish ACL recommendations as part of FW 7.
The measures implemented by this interim final rule are based on the best available scientific information from SAW 50, as required by National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The most recent monkfish stock assessment occurred on April 8–9, 2013, with final results expected sometime in May. Because the results of this next stock assessment will be available after the start of the FY, it would delay any benefits associated with this action, and would prevent affected vessels from benefitting from additional fishing opportunities and potential sources of additional revenue necessary to help mitigate the impacts of reduced groundfish ACLs. Such a delay would be contrary to the purpose and need for this action. Accordingly, we will review the results of the next monkfish assessment when determining whether to reinstate existing monkfish possession limits or continue this
Emergency actions must adhere to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards. The National Standard 4 guidelines at § 600.325 state that allocations of fishing privileges must be fair and equitable, and reasonably calculated to promote conservation. Regarding fairness and equity, the guidelines state that such an allocation should be “rationally connected to the achievement of OY or with the furtherance of a legitimate FMP objective.” The guidelines allow that an allocation may impose a hardship on one group if it is outweighed by the total benefits to another group. This emergency action attempts to achieve OY in the NFMA by increasing the likelihood that the FY 2013 NFMA monkfish TAL will be fully harvested. This action will provide additional fishing opportunities and associated landings and fishing revenue for Category C and D monkfish vessels impacted by reductions in groundfish ACLs. In doing so, this action addresses Objective 2 of the FMP in that it attempts to optimize yield and maximize economic benefits to a particular fishing sector. Thus, there is a direct and rational connection between this action and an objective of the FMP. Category A and B vessels will continue to be able to participate in both the directed and incidental monkfish fishery in the NFMA during FY 2013, but will not be able to land monkfish in excess of existing possession limits, as currently prescribed. While such vessels would not benefit from the opportunity to land monkfish in excess of existing possession limits, no predictable hardship is being imposed, as this is consistent with measures in effect since FY 2011. One commenter contended that Category A and B vessels could face reduced prices for monkfish they are able to land if large amounts of monkfish are landed in a short period of time and demand is insufficient to accommodate the supply at that time. However, this could occur in any FY. Further, as discussed more thoroughly in the EA prepared for this action, ex-vessel prices vary for a number of reasons, including the amount landed, the size of fish landed, and product type landed (whole, headed, tails, etc.). Therefore, it is very difficult to estimate the scale of any potential hardship that may befall Category A and B vessels due to additional monkfish landings as a result of this action. Overall, however, it is expected that there will be benefits to Category C and D vessels, and no predictable adverse impacts to Category A and B vessels during the duration of the emergency measures. Thus, the measures implemented by this interim final rule are consistent with National Standard 4.
This final rule implements measures that differ from those originally proposed for this emergency action. We have determined that the modifications fall within the scope of possible measures contemplated by this emergency action in that the modification merely withdraws the suspension of an existing measure. This possible action was analyzed as Alternative 1 in the EA developed for this action. Nevertheless, NMFS is soliciting additional public comment on these final measures, including the modification. NMFS is especially interested in receiving comments regarding what effect these measures may have on fishing behavior. Additional comments will be accepted through May 30, 2013.
NMFS has made two changes to the proposed rule, including changes as a result of public comment. These changes are listed below in the order that they appear in the regulations.
In § 648.94, the proposed suspension of paragraph (b)(3)(i) has been withdrawn, and the proposed addition of paragraph (b)(3)(iv) has been removed because monkfish Category C and D vessels are not exempt from existing monkfish possession limits when fishing under a groundfish DAS in the NFMA as part of this action.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the emergency measures implemented by this interim final rule are consistent with the Monkfish FMP, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, agency guidelines on emergency rules, and other applicable law. NMFS, in making a final determination, has taken into account the data, views, and comments received during the public comment period.
Because this rule relieves a restriction by suspending the current monkfish possession restrictions for vessels fishing under a monkfish DAS in the NFMA, it is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Vessels issued a Federal limited access monkfish Category C or D permit fishing in the NFMA under a monkfish DAS would otherwise be subject to a monkfish possession limit of 1,250 lb (567 kg) or 600 lb (272 kg) tail weight per DAS fished, respectively (see Table 1). If monkfish catch exceeds these limits, a vessel must either discard monkfish, or retain legal-sized fish and remain at sea until sufficient time has elapsed to account for the amount of monkfish retained. This action suspends those possession limits to encourage greater monkfish landings and associated fishing revenue as a means to help alleviate the substantial economic and social impacts expected from substantially reduced groundfish ACLs in FY 2013. Accordingly, implementing this action following a 30-day delayed effectiveness would be contrary to the public interest, because it would unnecessarily delay the public's ability to take advantage of unlimited monkfish possession limits and associated economic benefits of higher monkfish
This interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This interim final rule does not contain policies with Federalism or takings implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
An EA was prepared for this action that analyzed the environmental impacts of the measures being implemented, as well as alternatives to such measures. The measures originally proposed for this action are described as Alternative 2 in the EA prepared for this action, while the measures implemented by this action are described as Alternative 1 in the EA. This EA was revised since the publication of the proposed rule to incorporate updated information regarding the population estimates for Atlantic sturgeon, and to reclassify the preferred alternative for this action as Alternative 1. A copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact for the EA prepared for this action is available from the Regional Administrator (see
Pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS prepared this FRFA in support of the measures implemented by this interim final rule. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA that was published in the proposed rule for this action, relevant portions of the EA and preamble to this rule, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments. A summary of the economic impacts of the measures implemented by this interim final rule is included below to reflect that the measures implemented by this final action are those classified as the impacts of Alternative 1 in the IRFA that were not fully described in the proposed rule for this action. A description of the action, why it is being considered, its objectives, and its legal basis are contained in the preamble to the proposed and this interim final rule and in the background, purpose, and need discussion (Section 2.0) of the EA prepared for this action, and are not repeated here. A copy of this analysis is available from the Regional Administrator (see
We agree that it is possible that measures implemented by this interim final rule could decrease ex-vessel prices if sufficient volumes are landed in a short period of time and market demand is insufficient to accommodate the supply of monkfish. However, this is possible under current regulations as well. This interim final rule revises the proposed measures by only allowing Category C or D monkfish vessels fishing under a monkfish DAS to be exempt from existing monkfish possession limits in the NFMA. While this is expected to result in increased monkfish landings compared to existing measures, it is expected that less monkfish would be landed than under the proposed action. Therefore, this may help assuage concerns that this action would depress monkfish prices, but would not eliminate the potential for market prices to decrease during FY 2013.
Similar to the measures included in the proposed rule, the measures implemented by this interim final rule affect any vessel issued a valid Federal limited access monkfish Category C or D permit that fishes under a monkfish DAS in the NFMA. As of December 7, 2012, 2,212 vessels were issued a Federal monkfish permit, of which 558 were issued limited access monkfish Category C or D permits during FY 2012. However, not all of these vessels will likely fish in the NFMA during FY 2013. During FY 2008, 400 Category C or D vessels fished in the NFMA out of a total of 690 vessels that were issued a limited access monkfish Category C or D permit (58 percent). During FY 2011, a total of 189 monkfish Category C or D vessels fished exclusively in the NFMA, or in both the NFMA and SFMA during the same trip, out of 586 permits issued (32 percent). Therefore, it is expected that between 200–400 vessels would be affected by this action. The average size and horsepower of vessels affected by this action is 60 ft (18 m) and 540 horsepower. Because over 80 percent of NFMA monkfish landings in recent years were landed by trawl vessels, trawl vessels would be most affected by this action. For a more detailed description of the affected entities, refer to the EA prepared for this action (see
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as one that is: Independently owned and operated; not dominant in its field of operation; and has annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million in the case of commercial harvesting entities. In the proposed rule for this action, the IRFA stated that all vessels affected by this action are considered small vessels. Additional analysis prepared in support of FW 48 to the NE Multispecies FMP (March 25, 2013; 78 FR 18188) provided additional information regarding the size and affiliation of vessels issued a NE multispecies permit, including vessels issued a limited access monkfish Category C and D permit that are affected by this action. Calendar year 2011 serves as the baseline year for this analysis because calendar year 2012 data are not yet available in a fully audited form. There were 396 permited vessels that landed monkfish during calendar year 2011. By grouping unique combinations of persons who own each permit into distinct ownership groups, there were 303 distinct ownership entities identified during 2011. Mean gross sales by each of these distinct ownership groups were then summed for all affiliated permits to determine if the collective permits owned by each distinct ownership group exceeded the SBA threshold for defining large
Realized revenues from the final action are estimated to be approximately $14.4 million from monkfish landings alone by all vessels during FY 2013 based on a projection of monkfish landings and using the average monkfish price observed to date during FY 2012 ($1.22 per lb ($2.69 per kg) live weight equivalent). That projection estimated that monkfish landings would reach 11,764,639 lb (5,336 mt) under the final action (Alternative 1 in the EA). Compared to the No Action Alternative, the final action would increase monkfish landings by nearly 402,000 lb (182,000 kg), but would result in nearly 140,000 lb (63,500 kg) less monkfish landings than the proposed measures (Alternative 2 in the EA). The final action would increase monkfish fishing revenue by $490,000 compared to the No Action Alternative, but would result in nearly $170,000 less monkfish fishing revenue compared to the original proposed measures. Additional fishing revenue would also be expected based on landings of other species.
This action does not contain any new recordkeeping or reporting requirements, and does not impose any additional costs to affected vessels.
During the development of this emergency action, NMFS considered and fully analyzed three principal alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, the measures implemented by this interim final rule (Alternative 1), and measures specified in the proposed rule for this action (Alternative 2). The No Action Alternative would have retained the existing monkfish possession limits, while Alternative 2 would have suspended monkfish possession limits for vessels issued a Federal limited access monkfish Category C or D permit when fishing under either a monkfish or a groundfish DAS in the NFMA. NMFS also considered, but did not fully analyze, several additional alternatives that were rejected because they were beyond the scope of the purpose and need for this action. The No Action Alternative was not selected because the existing possession limits would not increase monkfish landings and help mitigate the adverse social and economic impacts of the reduced 2013 groundfish ACLs consistent with the purpose and need for this action. For a more complete description of the alternatives considered, refer to the EA prepared for this action (see
Both Alternatives 1 and 2 would likely result in increased fishing revenue compared to the existing monkfish possession limits, but different potential impacts on the monkfish resource. Based on public comments and further consideration by NMFS, Alternative 2 would likely create incentives to substantially increase monkfish effort by allowing vessels to use available groundfish DAS to fish for groundfish and monkfish in the NFMA, and save their monkfish DAS to fish for monkfish in the SFMA during FY 2013. Because current monkfish effort controls are based on recently observed fishing practices, such a shift in behavior would likely increase monkfish landings beyond those anticipated, particularly in the SFMA, thereby undermining the effectiveness of effort controls adopted in Amendment 5. This could lead to monkfish landings that exceed the SFMA TAL during FY 2013, as existing regulations do not allow the Regional Administrator to revise monkfish possession limits for vessels operating in the SFMA. Further, such measures are beyond the purpose and intent of this emergency action, and were not included in the proposed rule for this action. Therefore, it would not have been possible to slow or curtail excessive monkfish landings in the SFMA if monkfish fishing effort would shift into the SFMA under the proposed emergency action, as suggested in public comments. To minimize the potential increase and shift of effort into the SFMA, the measures implemented by this interim final rule require vessels to use their monkfish DAS to be exempt from current monkfish possession limits in the NFMA. This reduces the likelihood that monkfish fishing effort would substantially increase outside of the NFMA during FY 2013 and potentially cause the FY 2013 SFMA monkfish TAL to be exceeded.
Although this interim final rule would likely result in less monkfish fishing revenue than would be expected from the original proposed measures (Alternative 2), this final action would likely still result in economic benefits to affected entities. Further, unlike the original proposed measures, the final action would likely increase monkfish fishing opportunities and associated revenue in the NFMA without increasing the likelihood of exceeding the monkfish TAL in the SFMA. If excessive effort in the SFMA results in landings that exceed the SFMA monkfish TAL, overfishing could occur, leading to more restrictive measures and negative impacts in the future. This would necessitate reductions in future monkfish fishing opportunities in the SFMA, as suggested in public comments received for this action. Thus, this final action (Alternative 1) would likely provide the highest overall benefit to affected entities, while reducing the risk of long-term negative impacts to the monkfish resource and associated fishing vessels and communities.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the Northeast Regional Office, and the guide, i.e., permit holder letter, will be sent to all holders of permits for the groundfish and monkfish fisheries. The guide and this final rule will be available upon request from the Regional Administrator (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(h)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Harlingen, TX. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) due to the decommissioning of the Sebas locator outer marker/nondirectional radio beacon (LOM/NDB) at Valley International Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 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–2012–1140/Airspace Docket No. 12–ASW–11, 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–2012–1140/Airspace Docket No. 12–ASW–11.” 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 CFR), Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures due to the decommissioning of the Sebas LOM/NDB at Valley International Airport (formerly Rio Grande Valley International Airport), Harlingen, TX. Small segments would extend from the current 7.8-mile radius of the airport to 12.3 miles north and 11.5 miles south of the airport to provide adequate controlled airspace for the safety and management of IFR operations. Geographic coordinates and the airport name would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
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
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 7.8-mile radius of Valley International Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 181° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.8-mile radius to 11.5 miles south of the airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the 000° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.8-mile radius to 12.3 miles north of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace in the Live Oak, FL area, as new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) have been developed at Suwannee County Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the continued safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs within the Live Oak, FL, airspace area. This action would also update the geographic coordinates of Suwannee Hospital Emergency Heliport.
0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before June 14, 2013.
Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2013–0001; Airspace Docket No. 12–ASO–45, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule 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 (FAA Docket No. FAA–2013–0001; Airspace Docket No. 12–ASO–45) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2013–0001; Airspace Docket No. 12–ASO–45.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's 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.
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface in the Live Oak, FL area, creating controlled airspace within a 7-mile radius of Suwannee County Airport, to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Suwannee County Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the continued safety and management of IFR operations within the Live Oak, FL, airspace area. Also, the point in space coordinates serving Suwannee Hospital Emergency Heliport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations 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 will 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, would 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 United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed 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 proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace in the Live Oak, FL, area.
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 7-mile radius of Suwannee County Airport, and within 6-mile radius of the points in space (lat. 30°17′29″ N., long. 83°0′24″ W.) serving Suwannee Hospital Emergency Heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Fort Polk, LA. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Polk Army Airfield (AAF). The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 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–2013–0267/Airspace Docket No. 13–ASW–2, 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
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 amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at Polk AAF, Fort Polk, LA. A small segment would extend from the current 7.6-mile radius of the airport to 20.2 miles north of the airport to provide adequate controlled airspace for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Geographic coordinates would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
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 Polk AAF, Fort Polk, LA.
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 7.6-mile radius of Polk AAF, and within 8 miles west and 4 miles east of each side of the 340° radial from the Polk VORTAC extending from the 7.6-mile radius to 20.2 miles north of the airport, excluding that airspace within restricted areas R–3803A, R–3804A, and R–3804B.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Stockton, KS. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Rooks County Regional Airport. The FAA is
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 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–2013–0274/Airspace Docket No. 13–ACE–2, 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–2013–0274/Airspace Docket No. 13–ACE–2.” 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 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius, with an extension to the south, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at Rooks County Regional Airport, Stockton, KS. Controlled airspace is needed 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 establish controlled airspace at Rooks County Regional Airport, Stockton, 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 7-mile radius of Rooks County Regional Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 181° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 10.1 miles south of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Colt, AR. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Delta Regional Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 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–2012–1281/Airspace Docket No. 12–ASW–13, 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–2012–1281/Airspace Docket No. 12–ASW–13.” 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 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Delta Regional Airport, Colt, AR, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. Controlled airspace is needed 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 establish controlled airspace at Delta Regional Airport, Colt, AR.
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 7.1-mile radius of Delta Regional Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Parkston, SD. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Parkston Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 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–2012–1282/Airspace Docket No. 12–AGL–16, 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–2012–1282/Airspace Docket No. 12–AGL–16.” 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 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at Parkston Municipal Airport, Parkston, SD. Controlled airspace is needed 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,
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 6.8-mile radius of Parkston Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Mahnomen, MN. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Mahnomen County Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 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–2012–1283/Airspace Docket No. 12–AGL–15, 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–2012–1283/Airspace Docket No. 12–AGL–15.” 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 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at Mahnomen County Airport, Mahnomen, MN. Controlled airspace is needed 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 establish controlled airspace at Mahnomen County Airport, Mahnomen, MN.
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-mile radius of Mahnomen County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Walker, MN. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Walker Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 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–2013–0266/Airspace Docket No. 13–AGL–11, 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–2013–0266/Airspace Docket No. 13–AGL–11.” 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 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 8-mile radius to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at Walker Municipal Airport, Walker, MN. Controlled airspace is needed 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 establish controlled airspace at Walker Municipal Airport, Walker, MN.
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 an 8-mile radius of Walker Municipal Airport.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Intent to establish negotiated rulemaking committee; correction.
In May 2012, we announced our intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to prepare proposed regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. On April 16, 2013, we published in the
Effective April 30, 2013.
In the
The docket number for the notice is correctly stated as “ED–2012–OPE–0008” on page 22467 in the third column of the notice. However, in the heading in the first column on page 22467, the docket number is incorrectly stated as “ED–2013–OPE–0008,” rather than the correct “ED–2012–OPE–0008.” We are correcting that error.
20 U.S.C. 1098a.
Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8017, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 502–7526. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve most elements of New York's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted to demonstrate that the State meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA–R02–OAR–2013–0274, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4249, or by email at
EPA is proposing to approve and conditionally approve elements of the State of New York Infrastructure SIP as meeting the section 110(a) infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new and revised NAAQS for 8-hour ozone (62 FR 38856) and PM
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA requires, in part, that states submit to EPA plans to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require states to address basic SIP requirements including emission inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. These SIPs are commonly called infrastructure SIPs. In 1997, EPA promulgated the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary NAAQS and a new annual and 24-hour PM
The infrastructure requirements are listed in EPA's October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM
Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the 3 year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time that the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. See 77 FR 46354 (August 3, 2012); 77 FR 60308 (October 3, 2012, footnote 1). These requirements are: (1) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address the above infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(C) or 110(a)(2)(I).
This action also does not address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM
This rulemaking will not cover four substantive issues that are not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (“SSM”) at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (“director's discretion”); (iii) existing provisions for minor source NSR programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (“minor source NSR”); and, (iv) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). A detailed rationale for why these four substantive issues are not part of the scope of infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be found in EPA's July 13, 2011, final rule entitled, “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM
EPA is acting on three New York SIP submittals, dated December 13, 2007, October 2, 2008 and March 15, 2010, which address the section 110 infrastructure requirements for the three NAAQS: the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM
New York's section 110 infrastructure submittal was submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on December 13, 2007 and addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Effective April 28, 2008, the submittal was determined to be complete for all elements except 110(a)(2)(C). 73 FR 16205 (March 27, 2008). New York's December 13, 2007 section 110 submittal demonstrates how the State, where applicable, has a plan in place that meets the requirements of section 110 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This plan references the current New York Air Quality SIP, the New York Codes of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), the New York Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) and the New York Public Officer's Law (POL). The NYCRR, ECL and POL
New York's section 110 infrastructure submittal for the 1997 PM
New York's section 110 infrastructure submittal for the 2006 PM
EPA's evaluation of all three submittals is detailed in the “Technical Support Document for EPA's Proposed Rulemaking for the New York's State Implementation Plan Revision: State Implementation Plan Revision For Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements In the Clean Air Act Dated December 13, 2007, October 2, 2008 and March 15, 2010” (TSD). As explained in the
Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means, or techniques, and schedules for compliance. EPA notes that the specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirement of section 172, not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). New York's ECL section 19–0301, provides the NYSDEC with power to formulate, adopt and promulgate, amend and repeal codes and rules and regulations for preventing, controlling and prohibiting air pollution in such areas of the State as shall or may be affected by air pollution. The federally enforceable New York SIP contains enforceable emission limits and other control measures. EPA is proposing to determine that New York has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, to monitor, compile and analyze ambient air quality data, and to make these data available to EPA upon request. New York, under its authority provided in ECL subsection 19–0305(2)(d), operates and maintains a network of ambient air quality monitors used to sample the degree of air pollution throughout the State and submits the data collected to EPA. New York has submitted annual air monitoring network plans which have been approved by EPA. The most recent was approved by EPA on October 18, 2012. EPA is proposing to determine that New York has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to have a plan that includes a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source, including a program to meet Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and minor source new source review.
The NYSDEC is authorized by ECL section 19–0305, to enforce the codes, rules and regulations of the NYCRR. The minor source permitting and enforcement programs operate under Title 6 NYCRR Part 201, “Permits and Registrations”. EPA proposes to find that the State has adequate authority and regulations to insure that SIP approved control measures are enforced for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 PM
On March 3, 2009, the State of New York, through the NYSDEC, submitted to EPA Region 2 revisions to the New York SIP. The submittal consists of revisions to three regulations. The affected regulations are: 6 NYCRR Part 231, “New Source Review for New and Modified Facilities”; 6 NYCRR Part 200, “General Provisions”; and 6 NYCRR Part 201, “Permits and Certificates”. The purpose of these revisions were to revise the New York State PSD program regulations and to update the existing New York State nonattainment regulations consistent with changes to the Federal NSR regulations published on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186). On November 17, 2010 (75 FR 70140), EPA approved the New York PSD program.
EPA proposes to find that the State has adequate authority and regulations to ensure that SIP-approved control measures are enforced. EPA also finds that based on the approval of New York's PSD program, New York has the authority to regulate the construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet the PSD program requirements. EPA is proposing to determine that New York has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the CAA with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(D) is divided into two subsections, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) consists of two subsections (I) and (II), each of which has two “prongs.” The two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will (prong 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS, and (prong 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS. The two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C (prong 3) to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or (prong 4) to protect visibility.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) addresses interstate and international pollution abatement, and requires SIPs to include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
In this action for New York, with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), we are only addressing prong 3 (i.e., interference with PSD) and prong 4 (i.e., to protect visibility) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA previously took rulemaking action on prong 1 and prong 2 on January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4109) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM
For prong 4, New York has met its obligations pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility protection for all three NAAQS through its Regional Haze SIP submittals, which were approved by EPA on August 28, 2012 (77 FR 51915). The regional haze rule specifically requires that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. Thus, New York's approved Regional Haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources within the State are not interfering with measures to protect visibility in other states. Therefore, EPA proposes to find for 8-hr ozone and PM
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which relates to interstate and international pollution abatement, as noted above, on November 17, 2010 (75 FR 70140), EPA approved the New York PSD program which is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), and requires a source to notify air agencies whose lands may be affected by emissions from that source (see 6 NYCRR sections 231–7.4(f) and 8.5(f)). New York has no pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the CAA. Therefore, we are proposing to approve New York's submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires each state to provide necessary assurances that the state (i) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), (ii) will comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128, and (iii) where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
New York has adequate authority, under ECL sections 19–0301, 0303 and 0305, to carry out its SIP obligations with respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM
Congress added section 128 in the 1977 amendments. Titled “State boards,” section 128 provides in relevant part: (a) Not later than the date one year after August 7, 1977, each applicable implementation plan shall contain requirements that: (1) Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under [this Act] shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under [this Act], and (2) Any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. New York does not have a state board that approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. Instead, permits and enforcement orders are approved by the State's Commissioner of Environmental Conservation. Thus, the requirements of subsection 128(a)(1) are not applicable to New York. New York is subject to the requirements of section 128(a)(2). In its SIP submission New York cited POL sections 74(2) and 74(3)(e) which address conflict of interest. However, after further discussion with NYSDEC, it is more relevant to cite POL section 73-a, “Financial disclosure” and 19 NYCRR 937, “Access To Publicly Available Records,” as satisfying the section 128(a)(2) requirement. EPA proposes to conditionally approve the infrastructure SIP in fulfilling the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for 1997 8-hour ozone and PM
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to provide necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency or instrumentality for the implementation of any provision of the SIP, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP provision. The NYSDEC has delegation authority for inspection and enforcement efforts of various regulations under the general enforcement powers provided in ECL section 19–0305.
While New York has the authority to delegate responsibilities to county or local governments to implement certain SIP responsibilities, the information provided in both infrastructure SIP submittals does not identify the specific organizations that will participate in developing, implementing, and enforcing the plan and the responsibilities of such organizations. EPA proposes to conditionally approve the infrastructure SIP with regard to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii). The State must identify the county or local governments or entities that participate in the SIP planning efforts, identify the county or local governments or entities that have been delegated responsibilities to implement or enforce portions of the SIP, and provide copies of the delegation orders or memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between the State and the county or local governments or entities. Since it is EPA's understanding that this deficiency involves information that exists but was not provided in the SIP submittal, EPA proposes to conditionally approve section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires states to establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit periodic emission reports.
The NYSDEC has the authority pursuant to ECL subsection 19–0311(3)(c) to require emissions monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting of stationary sources before an operating permit is issued or renewed. NYSDEC has adopted regulations to implement the federal requirements for stationary source emissions monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping in 6 NYCRR Part 201–6.4(b) and (c).
The NYSDEC adopted 6 NYCRR Part 202, “Emission Verification,” to require emissions reports from stationary sources. Further 6 NYCRR Part 616, Access to Records, specifically allows emission information to be made available to the public.
Based on the authority pursuant to ECL subsection 19–0311(3)(c) and the adoption of the Part 202, specifically subpart 202–2, “Emission Statements,” EPA is proposing to find that New York has met the requirements of section
Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
For PM
Since 2006, air-quality monitors in New York show that PM
However, in general and for the 1997 ozone standard, the section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements are addressed by New York's ECL, Articles 3 and 19, which are implemented through 6 NYCRR Part 207, “Control Measures for Air Pollution Episodes.” Among other things, 6 NYCRR Part 207 requires persons who own a significant air contamination source to submit a proposed episode action plan to the NYSDEC Commissioner, and enable the Commissioner to designate air pollution episodes which trigger the action plans. Pursuant to Part 207.3(a), the NYSDEC Commissioner shall have on file and make available the criteria used in determining the need to designate episodes. The NYSDEC maintains an “Episode Action Plan” with guidelines and protocols/criteria to be followed in case of an air pollution emergency. The NYSDEC's Episode Action Plan has been updated to reflect the PM
Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires states to have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining NAAQS, and in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
Revisions to the New York SIP are authorized by Article 19 and sections 3–0301, 19–0103, 19–0301, 19–0303 and 19–0305 of the ECL. Article 19 of the ECL was adopted to protect New York's air resources from pollution and to put into effect the policy of the State to maintain a reasonable degree of purity of the air resources, consistent with the public health and welfare and the industrial development of the State. NYSDEC is granted specific powers and duties, including the power to promulgate regulations for preventing, controlling, or prohibiting air pollution. NYSDEC also has the specific authority to regulate motor vehicle exhaust and approve air contaminant control systems as well as regulate fuels. Section 71–2103 provides general enforcement authority for the New York State air regulations. Section 71–2105 provides criminal enforcement authority. Thus, New York has the authority to revise SIPs and provide for enforcement in response to changes in the NAAQS and improve methods for attaining the NAAQS. EPA proposes to find that the State has adequate authority to develop and implement plans and programs that fulfill the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 8-hr ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA requires that each such plan shall “in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D of this subchapter (relating to nonattainment areas).” EPA is not evaluating nonattainment-related provisions, the NSR program required by part D in section 110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by section 110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs because, as discussed elsewhere in this proposal, these submittals have been addressed by other SIP revisions which EPA has or will be acting on in other rulemakings.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet the applicable requirements of CAA section 121, relating to consultation, CAA section 127, relating to public notification, and CAA title I, part C, relating to the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection.
Section 121 requires a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements. EPA finds that the 110(a) submittals from New York, and the cited authority of section 3–0303 of the ECL, meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials.
Section 127 requires that the state plan include measures to effectively notify the public of any NAAQS exceedances, advise the public of health hazards associated with such pollution, and include measures to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
The NYSDEC's Web site, at
EPA is proposing to find that New York's SIP submittal has met the public notification requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to meet applicable requirements of Part C related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection. EPA evaluated this requirement in the context of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting (see discussion under (C) (program for enforcement of control measures)). EPA interprets this section 110 provision relating to visibility as not being “triggered” by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C are not changed by a new NAAQS.
On November 17, 2010 (75 FR 70140), EPA approved the New York PSD program, as discussed under (C) (program for enforcement of control measures). The approvability of a state's PSD program in its entirety is essential to the approvability of the infrastructure SIP with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, EPA proposes to approve New York's infrastructure SIP with respect to the PSD sub-element of 110(a)(2)(J).
Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to EPA upon request.
Authorized pursuant to sections 3–0301, 19–0103, 19–0301, 19–0303 and 19–0305 of the ECL, NYSDEC performs modeling as necessary to assess the degree of pollution in New York State. The NYSDEC certifies that the air quality modeling and analysis used in its SIPs complies with EPA's guidance on the use of models in attainment demonstrations, and commits to continue to use air quality models in accordance with EPA's approved modeling guidance and to submit data to EPA if requested. EPA proposes to find that the State has adequate authority to perform air quality modeling that fulfills the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K).
Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until such time as the SIP fee requirement is superseded by EPA's approval of the State's Title V operating permit program.
EPA's full approval of the Title V program for New York became effective on November 30, 2001. In New York State, the Title V Permit Fee Program is established in ECL section 19–0311(c) requiring the NYSDEC to promulgate regulations that, among other things, require applications to identify and describe facility emissions in sufficient detail to establish the basis for the fees and applicability of requirements of the CAA. ECL section 72–0303 requires major stationary sources to pay operating permit program fees sufficient to support an appropriation approved by the legislature for the direct and indirect costs associated with the operating permit program established in section 19–0311.
In addition, paragraph 201–6.5(a)(7) of 6 NYCRR subpart 201–6, the NYSDEC's approved Title V program, specifically states that “The owner and/or operator of a stationary source shall pay fees to the department consistent with the fee schedule authorized by Subpart 482–2 of this Title.”
EPA proposes to find that the State has met the requirements for section 110(a)(2)(L).
Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
EPA proposes to find that the State has adequate authority and procedures that fulfills the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M). See ECL section 3–0303(3).
EPA is proposing to approve New York's submittals as fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve New York's submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM
Under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve a plan based on a commitment from a State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year from the date of approval. If EPA conditionally approves the commitment in a final rulemaking action, the State must meet its commitment to complete requirements of each section 110(a)(2) element listed above. If New York fails to do so for any section 110(a)(2) element, our conditional approval of that element will, by operation of law, become a disapproval for New York one year from the date of final approval. EPA will notify the State by letter that this action has occurred. At that time, this commitment will no longer be a part of the approved SIP for New York. EPA subsequently will publish a document in the
If EPA disapproves a State's new submittal, the conditionally approved section 110(a)(2) element will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA approves the submittal, the section 110(a)(2) element will be fully approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally approved 110(a)(2) element in the SIP. Finally, if, based on information received before EPA takes final action on this proposal, EPA determines that it cannot issue a final conditional approval for one or more elements for which EPA has proposed a conditional approval, then EPA will instead issue a disapproval for such elements.
As discussed in section I, above, EPA is not acting on New York's submittal as it relates to nonattainment provisions, the NSR program required by part D in section 110(a)(2)(C) and the measures for attainment required by section 110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal. These comments will be considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional Office listed in the
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve updates to the Code of Federal Regulations delegation tables to reflect the current delegation status of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in Arizona, California, and Nevada.
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by May 30, 2013.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0981, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Adrianne Borgia at (415) 972–3576,
This proposal will update the delegation tables in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation Parts 60 and 61, to allow easier access by the public to the status of NSPS and NESHAP delegations in Arizona, California, and Nevada. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on our October 17, 2012, proposal to list 15 species as endangered and designate critical habitat for 1 of these 15 species on the Hawaiian island of Hawaii, and to designate critical habitat for 2 plant species that are already listed as endangered, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Critical habitat is not determinable for the remaining 14 species that we proposed to list in our October 17, 2012, proposed rule. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation and an amended required determinations section of the proposed designation. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. In addition, we provide supplemental information on one of the species proposed for listing and seek comments on our proposal to list this species in light of this new information. Comments previously submitted on this rulemaking do not need to be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. We also announce a public hearing and public information meeting on our proposed rule and associated documents.
The comment period for the proposed rule published October 17, 2012, at 77 FR 63928, is reopened.
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments we receive on
Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at 808–792–9400; or by facsimile at 808–792–9581. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
We are proposing to list 15 species on the Hawaiian island of Hawaii as endangered: specifically, 2 animals (picture-wing fly (
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat designation that was published in the
On October 17, 2012, we published a proposal (77 FR 63928) to list 15 species on the island of Hawaii in the Hawaiian Islands as endangered, and designate critical habitat for 1 of those species and for 2 plant species that are already listed as endangered. Later this year, we will publish two separate final rules: One concerning the listing determinations described above, and the other concerning the critical habitat determinations described above. The final listing rule will publish under the existing Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2012–0070, and the final critical habitat designation will publish under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2013–0028.
We request that you provide comments specifically on our listing determination under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2012–0070. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning threats (or the lack thereof) to the 15 species proposed for listing, and regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the biology, range, distribution, and population sizes of each of the 15 species proposed for listing, including any comments on the recently confirmed new location for
• The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
• Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
• Disease or predation;
• The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
• Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of the 15 species proposed for listing, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and their habitat.
(4) Comments on our proposal to revise taxonomic classification with a name change for one plant species identified in the proposed rule.
We request that you provide comments specifically on the critical habitat determination and related draft economic analysis under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2013–0028. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
(5) The reasons why we should or should not designate areas for
(6) Specific information on:
• The amount and distribution of critical habitat for the three plant species;
• Areas in the geographic area occupied at the time of listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the three plant species;
• Whether special management considerations or protections may be required for the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the three plant species; and
• What areas not currently occupied are essential to the conservation of the three plant species and why.
(7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the areas occupied or unoccupied by the species and proposed as critical habitat, and the possible impacts of these activities on these three species, or of critical habitat on these designations or activities.
(8) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area as critical habitat. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that may experience these impacts.
(9) Whether the benefits of excluding any particular area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including that area as critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, after considering the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation. We are considering the possible exclusion of non-Federal lands, especially areas in private ownership, and whether the benefits of exclusion may outweigh the benefits of inclusion of those areas. We, therefore, request specific information on:
• The benefits of including any specific areas in the final designation and supporting rationale.
• The benefits of excluding any specific areas from the final designation and supporting rationale.
• Whether any specific exclusions may result in the extinction of the species and why.
• For private lands in particular, we are interested in information regarding the potential benefits of including private lands in critical habitat versus the benefits of excluding such lands from critical habitat. In weighing the potential benefits of exclusion versus inclusion of private lands, the Service may consider whether existing partnership agreements provide for the management of the species. We may consider, for example, the status of conservation efforts, the effectiveness of any conservation agreements to conserve the species, and the likelihood of the conservation agreement's future implementation.
(10) Our process used for identifying those areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the species, as described in the section of the October 17, 2012, proposed rule titled
(11) Information on the extent to which the description of potential economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is complete and accurate.
(12) Whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and any regulatory changes that would likely occur if we designate critical habitat.
(13) Whether the draft economic analysis identifies all Federal, State, and local costs and benefits attributable to the proposed designation of critical habitat, and information on any costs that may have been inadvertently overlooked. For example, are there any costs resulting from critical habitat designation related to the enhancement or maintenance of nonnative ungulates for hunting programs?
(14) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
(15) Specific information on ways to improve the clarity of this rule as it pertains to completion of consultations under section 7 of the Act.
Our final determination concerning listing 15 species as endangered and designating critical habitat for 3 plant species on the island of Hawaii will take into consideration all written comments
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (October 17, 2012, 77 FR 63928) during the comment period from October 17, 2012, to December 17, 2012, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determinations.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule or draft economic analysis by one of the methods listed in the
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and draft economic analysis, will be available for public inspection on
We are holding a public information meeting and a public hearing on the date listed in the
Persons with disabilities needing reasonable accommodations to participate in the public information meeting or public hearing should contact Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see
The topics discussed below are relevant to designation of critical habitat for 3 plant species on the Hawaiian island of Hawaii in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning these species, refer to the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat published in the
On October 17, 2012, we published a proposed rule (77 FR 63928) to list 15 species as endangered and designate critical habitat for 3 plant species. We proposed to designate a total of 18,766 acres (ac) (7,597 hectares (ha)) on the island of Hawaii as critical habitat. Within that proposed rule, we announced a 60-day comment period, which began on October 17, 2012, and ended on December 17, 2012. Approximately 55 percent of the area being proposed as critical habitat is already designated as critical habitat for other species, including for the plant
The anchialine pool shrimp
The anchialine habitats in Manuka where
Although this new information does not change our proposal to list this species as endangered or our finding that the designation of critical habitat is not determinable at this time, as discussed in the proposed rule (77 FR 63928, October 17, 2012), we will consider this new evidence of a second occurrence of
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency unless it is exempted pursuant to the provisions of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(e)–(n) and (p)). Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Consistent with the best scientific data available, the standards of the Act, and our regulations, we have initially identified, for public comment, a total of 18,766 ac (7,597 ha) in seven multi-species units located on the island of Hawaii that meet the definition of critical habitat for the three plant species. In addition, the Act provides the Secretary with the discretion to exclude certain areas from the final designation after taking into consideration economic impacts, impacts on national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat. In the case of the three Hawaii Island plant species, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of one or more of these species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the species due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. With regard to these species, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. We also consider the potential economic or social impacts that may result from the designation of critical habitat.
In the proposed rule, we identified several areas to consider excluding from the final rule. We are considering excluding from the final designation approximately 4,099 ac (1,659 ha) of private lands that have a voluntary conservation agreement, partners in watershed partnerships or dry forest working groups, conservation or watershed preserve designation, or similar conservation protection.
These specific exclusions will be considered on an individual basis or in any combination thereof. In addition, the final designation may not be limited to these exclusions, but may also consider other exclusions as a result of continuing analysis of relevant considerations (scientific, economic, and other relevant factors, as required by the Act), and the public comment process. In particular, we solicit comments from the public on whether all of the areas identified meet the definition of critical habitat, whether other areas would meet that definition, whether to make the specific exclusions we are considering, and whether there are other areas that are appropriate for exclusion.
The final decision on whether to exclude any area will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment periods and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see
The purpose of the draft economic analysis (DEA) is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the three Hawaii Island plant species.
When a species is federally listed as endangered or threatened, it receives protection under the Act. For example, under section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies must consult with the Service to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do not jeopardize
The DEA describes the economic impacts of potential conservation efforts for the three Hawaii Island plant species; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for these species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the three plant species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those that would not be expected to occur without the designation of critical habitat for these species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat when evaluating the benefits of excluding particular areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, and considers the protections already afforded the three Hawaiian plants, regardless of critical habitat designation. The baseline for this analysis is the state of regulation, absent designation of critical habitat, which provides protection to these species under the Act, as well as any other Federal, State, and local laws and conservation plans. The baseline includes sections 7, 9, and 10 of the Act to the extent that they are expected to apply absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. The analysis qualitatively describes how baseline conservation for the three Hawaii Island plant species is currently implemented across the proposed designation in order to provide context for the incremental analysis (DEA Chapter 1.4 and Appendix B.3.1). For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see DEA Chapter B.3.
The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the three Hawaii Island plant species over the next 10 years, which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information is available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 10-year timeframe. It identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are the costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to listing. The DEA separately identifies the potential incremental costs of the critical habitat designation on lands being considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
The DEA focuses on economic activities that are occurring or have the potential to occur within the proposed critical habitat areas, and are of primary concern with respect to potential adverse modification of critical habitat. The key concern is the potential for activities to result in ground disturbance within a critical habitat unit. Such activities include commercial, residential, and industrial development, and transportation projects. Within these activity categories, the DEA is focused on those projects and activities that are considered reasonably likely to occur within the proposed critical habitat area. This includes projects or activities that are currently planned or proposed, or that permitting agencies or land managers indicate are likely to occur.
The only Federal regulatory effect of the designation of critical habitat is the prohibition on Federal agencies taking actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Federal agencies are not required to avoid or minimize effects unless the effects rise to the level of destruction or adverse modification as those terms are used in section 7 of the Act. Even then, the Service must recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives that: (1) Can be implemented consistent with the intended purpose of the action; (2) are within the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction; and (3) are economically and technologically feasible. Thus, while the Service may recommend conservation measures, unless the action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, implementation of recommended measures is voluntary, and Federal agencies and applicants have discretion in how they carry out their section 7 mandates.
Thus, the direct, incremental impacts of critical habitat designation stem from the consideration of the potential for destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat during section 7 consultations. The two categories of direct, incremental impacts of critical habitat designation are: (1) The added administrative costs of conducting section 7 consultation related to critical habitat; and (2) implementation of any conservation efforts requested by the Service through section 7 consultation, or required by section 7 to prevent the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The DEA describes the types of project modifications currently recommended by the Service to avoid jeopardy to the two currently listed species,
The Service estimates that the only project modification that may be recommended to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat above and beyond that recommended to avoid jeopardy to the species would be in cases where permanent impacts to critical habitat are unavoidable; in such cases, the Service would recommend that habitat loss be offset elsewhere in designated critical habitat, preferably within the critical habitat unit where the loss occurred. In other words, while the Service may recommend that habitat loss be offset even absent critical habitat designation, critical habitat designation may generate the additional
With regard to occupied habitat, the DEA predicts that a recommendation that ground disturbance be offset within the critical habitat unit would not generate additional economic impacts, beyond those related to the listing of the species under the Act. It is therefore unlikely that critical habitat designation would change the outcome of a future section 7 consultation on projects or activities within occupied areas, and incremental impacts would most likely be limited to the additional administrative effort of considering adverse modification as part of the consultation. However, the effects of each project on critical habitat would need to be evaluated as appropriate once a final decision has been made on this designation.
The proposed critical habitat designation includes seven multi-species units, totaling 18,766 acres (7,597 hectares) within Hawaii's lowland dry ecosystem. Each unit is occupied by at least one of the three species for which critical habitat is proposed, although the three plants do not necessarily occur across the entirety of each unit. Individuals of these species may be scattered intermittently throughout a unit or clumped in portions of a unit. While we have proposed areas that may be unoccupied on the basis that they are essential to the conservation of the species, for example in order to provide room for population expansion, there may be portions of each unit that would not be subject to section 7 consultation because the species does not occur in the specific location being impacted by a proposed action. Therefore, ground surveys to locate the individual plants would need to be conducted prior to each proposed project or activity within critical habitat and the cost of the consultation and any resulting conservation actions may be attributable to critical habitat.
The designation of critical habitat may, under certain circumstances, affect actions that do not have a Federal nexus and thus are not subject to the provisions of section 7 under the Act. Indirect impacts are those unintended changes in economic behavior that may occur outside of the Act, through other Federal, State, or local actions, and that are caused by the designation of critical habitat. Chapter 2.6 of the DEA discusses the types of potential indirect impacts that may be associated with the designation of critical habitat, such as time delays, regulatory uncertainty, and negative perceptions related to critical habitat designation on private property. These types of impacts are not always considered incremental. In the case that these types of conservation efforts and economic effects are expected to occur regardless of critical habitat designation, they are appropriately considered baseline impacts in this analysis.
Critical habitat may generate incremental economic impacts through implementation of additional conservation measures (beyond those recommended in the baseline) and additional administrative effort in section 7 consultation to ensure that projects or activities do not result in adverse modification of critical habitat. However, as described above and in Chapter 1 of the DEA, where critical habitat is considered occupied by the three Hawaii Island plant species, critical habitat designation is expected to have a more limited effect on economic activities, since section 7 consultation would already occur due to the presence of the species and these additional conservation measures would already be considered.
The focus of the DEA is on projects that are occurring or are reasonably likely to occur, based on information received from the development community in response to the proposed rule (77 FR 63928, October 17, 2012). Based on our section 7 consultation history, it is unlikely that critical habitat designation would change the outcome of a future section 7 consultation on projects or activities within occupied areas of the proposed designation. However, within unoccupied areas, all costs associated with conservation efforts recommended in section 7 consultations (including administrative costs) would be direct incremental costs attributable to proposed designation. Within areas proposed for critical habitat designation, the DEA estimates a total present value impact of $35,000 over the next 10 years (an annualized impact of $4,700, with a 7 percent discount rate) associated with future section 7 consultations (DEA, Exhibit 2–1). Impacts on projects occurring in areas being considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act are expected to be $15,000 (an annualized impact of $2,000, with a 7 percent discount rate). These costs reflect administrative effort of considering critical habitat in future section 7 consultations on projects identified as occurring within the proposed critical habitat area. Specifically, the DEA forecasts five future section 7 consultations for projects located in areas overlapping proposed critical habitat Units 33, 34, and 35, and three future consultations for projects located in areas being considered for exclusion in proposed critical habitat units 33, 34, and 35. The DEA assumes that all of the consultations would occur in 2013, following the designation of critical habitat.
Since projects and activities occurring within occupied habitat areas are less likely to be directly affected (i.e., economic impacts would most likely be limited to administrative costs), the DEA primarily focuses on the two reasonably foreseeable projects of which we are aware, that would occur within unoccupied areas of the proposed designation. These projects include a Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) residential project within proposed critical habitat unit 33, and a Queen Liliuokalani Trust (QLT) mixed-use development project within proposed critical habitat unit 35.
The DEA concludes that additional direct and indirect impacts of the designation are possible, although information limitations preclude quantification in this analysis. The DHHL project on 91 acres (37 hectares) of an unoccupied area of proposed critical habitat unit 33 is likely to be subject to section 7 consultation. However, significant uncertainty exists regarding the extent of conservation efforts that DHHL would ultimately undertake to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat. The QLT project overlaps 302 unoccupied acres (122 hectares) in proposed critical habitat Unit 35, and while a Federal nexus compelling consultation is unlikely, the project may be subject to indirect impacts including additional management by the county associated with required zoning changes. However, the uncertainties described in the DEA include whether the critical habitat designation will generate indirect economic impacts, including changes in land management by the State or county. Additionally, while the DEA describes the Service's initial recommendations, the projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis during
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if the Secretary determines the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
In our October 17, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 63928), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the draft economic analysis. We have now made use of the draft economic analysis data to make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as: (1) Agricultural, commercial, and residential development; (2) transportation; and (3) livestock grazing and other human activities. We apply the “substantial number” test individually to each industry to determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly define “substantial number” or “significant economic impact.” Consequently, to assess whether a “substantial number” of small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only has regulatory effects on activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and will not be affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where any of the three Hawaii Island plant species are present, Federal agencies are already required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the species. Federal agencies also must consult with us if their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see “Application of the Adverse Modification Standard” section of the proposed rule (October 17, 2012, 77 FR 63928)).
The Service's current understanding of recent case law is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking; therefore, they are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to those entities not directly regulated. The designation of critical habitat for an endangered or threatened species only has a regulatory effect where a Federal action agency is involved in a particular action that may affect the designated critical habitat. Under these circumstances, only the Federal action agency is directly regulated by the designation, and, therefore, consistent with the Service's current interpretation of RFA and recent case law, the Service may limit its evaluation of the potential impacts to those identified for Federal action agencies. Under this interpretation, there is no requirement under the RFA
As identified in Exhibit A–1, the third parties for five of the eight projects identified in the analysis are not considered small businesses. As it is unknown whether or not the third parties associated with the remaining three projects are small businesses, we conservatively assume that they are small businesses for purposes of our analysis. The per-consultation third-party cost of participating in a formal consultation is estimated to be $900, as described in Appendix B, Exhibit B–1. Exhibit A–2 provides information on the average annual revenues of small entities in the development industry, calculated using Risk Management Association (RMA) data. As detailed in the exhibit, the per-entity cost to participate in a single consultation likely represents approximately 0.01 percent or less of annual revenues. Note that the average annual revenues reported in Exhibit A–2 are derived from nationwide data, as there is limited data available to assess revenues of these types of businesses in Hawaii County, and therefore the revenues of these particular third parties may be far less. However, the estimated per-consultation cost of $900 is not likely to represent a significant portion of revenues for each third party. Therefore, we conclude that the economic impacts are not significant.
Following our evaluation of potential effects to small business entities from the proposed rulemaking, we conclude that the number of potentially affected small businesses is not substantial, and that the economic impacts are not significant. In the draft economic analysis, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the three Hawaii Island plant species. Quantified incremental impacts that may be borne by small entities are limited to the administrative costs of section 7 consultation related to development and transportation projects (DEA, Appendix A–4). For projects located in occupied areas of the proposed critical habitat designation, incremental impacts of the designation are likely limited to these administrative costs for participation in the consultations. For projects located in unoccupied areas of the proposed critical habitat designation, incremental impacts may also include costs associated with additional conservation efforts implemented as a result of section 7 consultation.
The proposed critical habitat is located in the South Kohala and North Kona districts of the Big Island. The Hawaii County General Plan, approved in 2005 by the County Council, identifies both districts as the major tourism centers on the island, and describes Kona as “the center for government, commercial, and industrial activities for West Hawaii.” The plan outlines a proposed land use pattern, known as the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide, which identifies much of the proposed critical habitat area for “urban expansion,” where “new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined.” In addition to the General Plan, which serves as the overall planning document for the county, Hawaii County also has Community Development Plans that translate the broader goals of the General Plan into specific implementation actions for geographic regions around the island. The Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP), adopted as Ordinance 08–131 in September 2008, identifies much of the area proposed for critical habitat designation as within the Kona Urban Area. Specifically, the entirety of proposed critical habitat Units 34, 35, and 36, and the majority of Unit 33, fall within the Kona Urban Area, as shown in Exhibit 2–2. One of the main goals of the KCDP is to direct future growth to the Kona Urban Area, and specifically to “compact villages located along proposed transit routes or to infill areas within, or adjacent to, existing development,” several of which overlap with the proposed critical habitat area.
Of the projects we identified within areas proposed for critical habitat designation, only two are expected to occur on lands that are unoccupied by the species, and could experience the greatest economic impact related to the proposed critical habitat designation. A Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) residential project is planned within proposed critical habitat Unit 33, and a development project is planned within critical habitat Unit 35 by the Queen Lili'uokalani Trust (QLT) (DEA, Chapter 2). The DHHL is a State governmental agency, and the QLT Statements of Financial Position dated December 31, 2011, and 2010 identifies current assets of $193,590,994 and $197,834,747, and liabilities of $4,137,037 and $2,518,920 respectively (QLT 2011). Accordingly, neither of these entities would be considered small businesses under the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA. Therefore, we conclude that the economic impacts are not significant. Following our evaluation of potential effects to small business entities from the proposed rulemaking, we conclude that the number of potentially affected small businesses is not substantial, and that the economic impacts are not significant.
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared to not taking the regulatory action under consideration. As described in the Chapter 1 of the DEA, the designation of critical habitat for the plants is not anticipated to result in any impacts to the energy industry. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of Interior's manual at 512 DM2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act,” we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
We have determined that there are no tribal lands occupied at the time of listing that contain the features essential for the conservation, and no tribal lands that are essential for the conservation, of the three Hawaii Island plant species. Therefore, we have not proposed designation of critical habitat for any of the three Hawaii Island plant species on tribal lands.
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tuolumne-Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee will meet on May 6, 2013, (alternate dates May 13, 2013 or May 20, 2013), at the City of Sonora Fire Department, in Sonora, California. The purpose of the meeting is to reprioritize projects due to expected decreases to Title II RAC funding.
The meeting will be held May 6, 2013, (alternate dates May 13, 2013 or May 20, 2013), from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the City of Sonora Fire Department located at 201 South Shepherd Street, in Sonora, California (CA 95370).
Beth Martinez, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370, (209) 532–3671, extension 320; EMAIL
Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Reprioritizing recommended projects based on finalized Title II funding decreases; (2) Public comment on meeting proceedings. This meeting is open to the public.
Departmental Management, Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO), USDA.
Notice of solicitation for membership.
We are giving notice that the Secretary is soliciting nominations for membership for this Committee to serve for 2-year terms.
Consideration will be given to nominations received on or before May 31st, 2013.
Nominations should be addressed to the person listed under
Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Officer, USDA OAO, 1400 Independence Avenue, Room 520–A, Washington, DC 20250–0170; Telephone (202) 720–6350; Fax (202) 720–7704; Email:
The Advisory Committee for Minority Farmers (ACMF) will advise the Secretary of Agriculture on strategies to heighten participation of historically socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in the USDA's assistance programs. The ACMF will also advise the Secretary on outreach and administration of competitive grants programs and how the USDA may enhance its efforts to build an inclusive future for this targeted group of minority farmers. The ACMF may also look at the civil rights activities of USDA and how they affect USDA programs in general.
Terms for the current members of the Committee are set to expire in May 2013. We are therefore soliciting nominations from socially disadvantaged ranching and farming producers, civil rights professionals, private nonprofit organizations that support socially disadvantaged producers; and higher education institutions that work with socially disadvantaged producers. The membership term shall be 2 years from the date of appointment. The Secretary may also appoint others as deemed necessary and appropriate to fulfill the ACMF charter. The Committee Chair—who shall be the Assistant Secretary for Administration—will be appointed by the Secretary.
An organization may nominate individuals from within or outside its membership; alternatively, an individual may nominate herself or himself. Current members may likewise apply for reappointment. Nomination packages should include a nomination form along with a cover letter or resume that documents the nominee's background and experience. Nomination forms are available on the Internet at
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be requested.
Comments on this notice must be received by July 1, 2013.
Michele Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5162 South Building, Washington, DC 20250–1522. Telephone: (202) 690–1078. Fax: (202) 720–8435. Email:
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for approval. 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 will have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Michele Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250–1522. FAX: (202) 720–8435. Email:
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Anne Mayberry, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690–1756. FAX: (202) 720–8435, or Email:
Georgia Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 26, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of PBR, Inc. d/b/a SKAPS Industries (SKAPS), located in Athens, Georgia. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 8, 2013.
The SKAP facilities are located at 325, 330, and 335 Athena Drive in Athens (Clarke County), Georgia. A separate request for usage-driven status at the SKAP facilities was submitted and will be processed under Section 400.24(c) of the FTZ Board's regulations. The facilities are used for the production of non-woven geotextile fabric using polypropylene fiber. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt SKAPS from customs duty payments on the foreign status polypropylene fiber used in export production. On its domestic sales, SKAPS would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to geotextile fabric (free) for the foreign status polypropylene fiber (4.3%). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 10, 2013.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe
Sergio Balbontin, 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) 482–6478.
The Department initiated an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on seamless pipe from the PRC covering the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, based on a request by United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”).
On March 27, 2013, U.S. Steel withdrew its request for an administrative review of these 203 companies.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, U.S. Steel withdrew its requests within the 90-day deadline and no other parties requested an administrative review of the countervailing duty order. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of seamless pipe from the PRC covering the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, of the 203 companies listed in the
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess countervailing duties on all entries of seamless pipe from the PRC during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
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 countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period.
This notice also serves as a final 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/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 violation that is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, June 12, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, June 13, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, June 14, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 12, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, June 13, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, June 14, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will take place at the United States Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.
Annie Sokol, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930, telephone: (301) 975–2006, or by email at:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, June 12, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, June 13, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, June 14, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The ISPAB is authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278g–4, as amended, and advises the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Director of NIST on information security and privacy issues pertaining to federal computer systems. Details regarding the ISPAB's activities are available at
The agenda is expected to include the following items:
Note that agenda items may change without notice because of possible unexpected schedule conflicts of presenters. The final agenda will be posted on the Web site indicated above. Seating will be available for the public and media. No registration is required to attend this meeting.
Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the ISPAB at any time. All written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of public conference call and webinar.
NMFS will hold a public conference call to discuss progress on current goals and objectives in the 2011 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Recreational Fishing Action Agenda and potential updates to the Agenda. The 2011 Atlantic HMS Recreational Fishing Action Agenda was developed as part of a national effort to provide a comprehensive perspective of our efforts relating to recreational fisheries.
An operator-assisted, public conference call and webinar will be held on May 15, 2013, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT.
The conference call information is phone number 800–857–5085; participant pass code 1116226. We will also show a brief presentation via webinar. RSVP at
Clifford Hutt at 301–427–8503; Brad McHale at (978) 281–9139; or Randy Blankenship at (727) 824–5313.
The Secretary of Commerce manages Atlantic HMS, including Atlantic tunas, sharks, billfish, and swordfish, and has delegated that authority to NMFS. Atlantic HMS are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSA) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Management of HMS requires international cooperation given the migratory nature of the species.
In December 2011, as part of a national effort to provide a comprehensive perspective of our efforts relating to recreational fisheries, we released the 2011 Atlantic HMS Recreational Fishing Action Agenda to serve as a publicly available roadmap detailing priorities and objectives for addressing recreational fishing issues. Development of the 2011 Atlantic HMS Recreational Fishing Action Agenda included input from the Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel and the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC) Recreational Fisheries Working Group. The 2011 Atlantic HMS Recreational Fishing Action Agenda is available at
On May 15, 2013, we will hold a public conference call and webinar to discuss updating the 2011 Atlantic HMS Recreational Fishing Action Agenda. The purpose of this call is to report on our progress toward achieving the goals and objectives laid out in the original action agenda, and to discuss potential revisions to the plan. Additionally, we will discuss efforts to improve HMS recreational fishing opportunities, recreational catch and effort data, social and economic data on recreational fisheries, and communication with recreational constituents.
The call will start with a presentation, which participants and interested parties can follow via webinar, that will cover an overview of the current HMS Recreational Fishing Action Agenda, and our progress towards accomplishing the objectives listed therein. The presentation will be followed by a discussion among members of the HMS Advisory Panel, the MAFAC Recreational Fisheries Working Group, recreational constituents, academics researching HMS fisheries, non-governmental organizations interested in HMS recreational fishing issues, and members of the public. For information on how to participate in the call, see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Council to convene public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a meeting of the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Advisory Panel.
The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and conclude by 4 p.m. on Wednesday, May 15, 2013.
The meeting will be held at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348–1630.
Ryan Rindone; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630 x241.
The Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) Advisory Panel will meet to discuss CMP Amendments 19 and 20. Amendment 19 addressed sale and permit provisions for Gulf of Mexico Spanish and king mackerel. Amendment 20 addresses season length, transit provisions, allocation, and framework procedures for coastal
Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348–1630.
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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 action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a joint public meeting of its Groundfish Committee and Habitat Committee on May 17, 2013 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Friday, May 17, 2013 at 9 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
The Groundfish and Habitat Committees will convene jointly to continue development of alternatives for inclusion in Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2. The Committees will receive a report from the Closed Area Technical Team and Habitat Plan Development Team with technical advice about integrating Habitat Management and Juvenile Groundfish Habitat Management Options, including a summary of various evaluation metrics. The Committees will provide guidance about packaging options into alternatives.
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 listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) has received a petition requesting an exception from the 100 ppm lead content limit under section 101(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), as amended by Public Law 112–28 from BIC USA Inc. (BIC). We invite written comments concerning the petition.
Submit comments by May 30, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC–2013–0016, by any of the following methods:
Kristina Hatlelid, Ph.D., M.P.H., Directorate for Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Pl, Rockville, MD 20850; email:
Under section 101(a) of the CPSIA, consumer products designed or intended primarily for children 12 years old and younger that contain lead content in excess of 100 ppm are considered to be banned hazardous substances under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA).
Section 101(b)(1) of the CPSIA provides for a functional purpose exception from lead content limits under certain circumstances. The exception allows the CPSC, on the Commission's own initiative, or upon petition by an interested party, to exclude a specific product, class of product, material, or component part from the lead limits established for children's products under the CPSIA if, after notice and a hearing, the Commission determines that: (i) The product, class of product, material, or component part requires the inclusion of lead because it is not practicable or not technologically feasible to manufacture such product, class of product, material, or component part, as the case may be, in accordance with section 101(a) of the CPSIA by removing the excessive lead or by making the lead inaccessible; (ii) the product, class of product, material, or component part is not likely to be placed in the mouth or ingested, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of such product, class of product, material, or component part by a child; and (iii) an exception for the product, class of product, material, or component part will have no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse.
Under section 101(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA, there is no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety if the exception will result in no measurable increase in blood lead levels of a child. In November 2012, CPSC staff issued a report, which found that, for the purposes of evaluating children's products for an exception from the CPSIA lead limit, a product will have no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety if a potential exposure to lead from the product is estimated to result in an increase in a child's blood lead level of less than 0.8 µg/dL. The level of exposure that would be associated with such an increase is approximately 2.2 µg per day. That report may be viewed at:
Given the highly technical nature of the information required for an exception, including data on the lead content of the product and test methods used to obtain those data, the Commission finds that notice of the petition and solicitation for written comments would provide the most efficient process for providing an adequate opportunity for all interested parties to participate in the proceeding. However, the Commission may hold a public hearing or public meeting if the Commission deems a public hearing or public meeting appropriate and necessary to determine whether the petition for a functional purpose exception should be granted.
On March 25, 2013, BIC submitted a petition requesting an exception from the lead content limit of 100 ppm under section 101(b) of the CPSIA for a new line of writing instrument products aimed at children age 5 and up (BIC Children's Pen) to address the needs of young children who are in the early stages of learning to write. BIC specifically requests the functional purpose exemption for the point component of the BIC Children's Pen. The accessible portion of the nickel silver points assembly that BIC proposes to use in its BIC Children's Pen contains total lead of approximately 8720 ppm (point and point support subassembly). According to BIC, all of the other accessible components of the BIC Children's Pen contain total lead below 100 ppm.
BIC contends that removing or making excess lead inaccessible in manufacturing the BIC Children's Pen is neither practicable nor technologically feasible. BIC states that if BIC were to change the metal alloy to reduce the lead content to below 100 ppm, millions of dollars in high-speed manufacturing equipment would require retooling and use of cutting oil to produce the points, requiring significant resources and capital. In addition, BIC asserts that adjusting manufacturing processes in this way would result in lower point manufacturing productivity and a reduction in machine speeds and machine cycling.
BIC further states that the only metal alloy available for pen points that contain lead below 100 ppm is stainless steel. However, BIC does not produce stainless steel points in any of its factories. According to BIC, stainless steel points are more commonly used with water-based inks typically found in roller ball pens and gel ink pens. The BIC Children's Pen will not contain a water-based ink; rather, the pen will contain a solvent-based ink that is used in BIC's ballpoint pens.
BIC also contends that the BIC Children's Pen point is not likely to be placed in the mouth or ingested. According to BIC, the BIC Children's Pen is designed without a cap, clip, or pen body that can be opened. In addition, the point is securely adhered to the ink cartridge, and therefore, the point is not easily detachable, and the point is retractable. BIC states that the frequency of mouthing of objects by children who are intended to use the BIC Children's Pen is relatively low for the user age group (ages 5−12), and because the pen point is sharp, children will not mouth the pen point end of the product.
Finally, BIC asserts that granting an exception will have no measurable adverse effect on public health or safety, taking into account normal and foreseeable use and abuse because the potential exposure to the pen point would have no measurable increase in blood lead levels of a child. According to BIC, a child's fingers would not likely be in contact with the pen point during normal use conditions, and the point would be extremely difficult to grip. In addition, BIC states that a wipe test of the pen point shows that even in a worst case analysis (assuming purposeful dermal contact), the potential exposure to lead would be 0.31 µg/day, which is far less than the CPSC staff recommendation that 2.2 µg/day can be used in a determination of a “measurable increase” in blood lead levels of a child.
Through this notice, we invite written comments on the petition. Interested parties may view a copy of the petition under supporting and related materials identified by Docket No. CPSC–2013–0016, through
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Process and Impact Evaluation of the Minnesota Reading Corps for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Scott Richardson, at (202) 606–6903 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose 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.
A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Notice of Availability (NOA) for Sharpe Permit Relinquishment Project Environmental Assessment.
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) announces the availability of an environmental assessment (EA) for the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action to relinquish DLA's current permit from the U.S. Department of the Army for the use and occupancy of the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, California—Sharpe [Sharpe Site]. The EA has been prepared as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331
The public comment period will end 30 days after publication of this NOA in the
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Public Affairs Office, Tracy, California, (209) 839–4226.
National Security Agency, DoD.
Notice.
The National Security Agency hereby gives notice of its intent to grant Integrata Security, LLC a revocable, non-assignable, exclusive, license to practice the following Government-Owned invention as described in U.S. Patent No. 8,069,483 entitled: “Device for and Method of Wireless Intrusion Detection,” issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office on November 29, 2011, and any related non-provisional patent application and all Letters Patent issuing thereon, and any continuation, continuation-in-part or division of said non-provisional patent application and any reissue or extension of said Letters Patent.
The above-mentioned invention is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the National Security Agency.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice publication to file written objections along with any supporting evidence, if any.
Written objections are to be filed with the National Security Agency Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6848, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755–6848.
Marian T. Roche, Director, Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6848, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755–6848, telephone (443) 634–3514.
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 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 May 30, 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.
1. To describe the services and strategies that Upward Bound grantees implement. Upward Bound projects are required to provide a wide-range of services, and are allowed to provide other services as well. The survey will attempt to capture program offerings, requirements, and features of the program that participants experience and which may improve their prospects of successfully competing high school, entering college, and completing college.
2. To provide input into the decision-making process to identify a strategy to test as part of a random assignment demonstration. ED has contracted with a research team to (1) conduct a rigorous evaluation of college savings accounts in the context of the GEAR UP Program and (2) under an option that could be exercised by ED, conduct a random assignment demonstration of one or more promising strategies that could be implemented in an Upward Bound context to improve participant outcomes. This survey of UB grantees will probe into specific UB programmatic areas to identify to determine the prevalence of different implementation strategies and obtain a more complete picture on how some of these strategies are implemented. The results of this survey will inform the UB community as a whole as well as the planned future work noted above.
The grantee survey will be conducted with all 820 regular Upward Bound projects in the spring of 2013. Preliminary results from the survey, which will be shared internally within ED in late Spring 2013, will help inform the selection of a yet-to-be determined promising strategy or strategies for a possible experimental study that could be implemented in a set of UB grantees. ED will decide whether to exercise the option for a study of promising strategies in Upward Bound by June 2013, based, in large part, on the findings from the survey of UB grantees.
Additionally, IES plans to publicly release the findings from the survey of UB grantees through a report that will require approval by the IES Standards and Review Office. This report will be of great interest to program providers and researchers concerned about college access programs in light of the recent changes to the Upward Bound program that were made in the 2012 grant competition. One of the important questions arising from the UB 2012 grant competition is what type of approaches or strategies UB projects initiated in an effort to reduce the cost of implementing key program components while not reducing the number of students served. For example, a review of 2012 UB grant applications revealed that UB applicants proposed introducing the use of various technologically-based approaches to delivering some program components. The UB grantee survey is intended to identify and describe the specific strategies that UB projects actually implement to fulfill their grant objectives in conducting required program components.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations (18 CFR Part 380), Commission staff has reviewed plans, filed April 2011, and supplemented February 14, 2012, to perform embankment seismic stability improvement (ESSI) work at Linville Dam, part of the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project's Bridgewater Development, which is located on the Catawba River in McDowell and Burke counties, North Carolina. The project is located in nine counties in North Carolina and five counties in South Carolina.
As planned by the project licensee, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy), the ESSI work would involve the installation of a counterweight stability berm against the downstream face of Linville Dam. The ESSI work is necessary because it has been determined that Linville Dam could fail during a seismic event (identified as an earthquake of approximately magnitude 5.4). Accordingly, the Commission is requiring remediation under Part 12 of its regulations. In the environmental assessment (EA), Commission staff has analyzed the probable environmental effects of the planned work and has concluded that approval of the work, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on April 23, 2013, the applicants listed above submitted an amendment to the December 6, 2012, baseline filing of their Statement of Operating Conditions for services provided under Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing 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). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Mega Energy Holdings, LLC's application for
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is May 13, 2013.
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 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) 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
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. All local, state, and federal agencies, tribes, and interested parties, are hereby invited to observe the meeting in person.
f. This meeting was originally noticed on July 17, 2012, and subsequently postponed on August 3, 2012.
On February 1, 2013, Hydrodynamics, Inc. filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Ruby River Reservoir Water Power Project (project) to be located on the Ruby River, near Alder in Madison County, Montana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An 846-foot-long, 111-foot-high earthen dam; (2) a reservoir with a surface area of 970 acres and a storage capacity of 36,663 acre-feet at a normal water surface elevation of 5,392 feet mean sea level; (3) a 180-foot-long, 84-inch-diameter concrete with steel liner penstock consisting of a concrete outlet tunnel works; (4) a 20-foot-long, 84-inch-diameter penstock extending from the tunnel to the powerhouse; (5) a powerhouse containing two generating units with a combined installed capacity of 2.3 megawatts; (6) a tailrace discharging flows into the Ruby River at the base of the dam; (7) a new substation; (8) a 2-mile-long, 15-kilovolt transmission line; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 10 gigawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on April 16, 2013, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky, filed in Docket No. CP13–179–000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), seeking authorization to abandon a portion of compression within its existing Tonganoxie Compressor Station located in Leavenworth County, Kansas, all as more fully set forth in the application. This filing is accessible on-line at
Specifically, Southern Star proposes to abandon in place four compressor units (Units 1 through 4), each rated at 440 horsepower, at its Tonganoxie Compressor Station. These units, installed in 1949, were used in routing natural gas from Southern Star's Ottawa Compressor Station and McLouth Gas Storage field to system deliveries in the St. Joe, Atchison, Fall City, and Tonganoxie-Fairfax areas. Southern Star has deemed the utilization of these units to be unnecessary in serving peak firm service, and the abandonment will save on maintenance costs and avoid the need for future capital cost.
Any questions regarding the applications should be directed to David N. Roberts, Staff Analyst, Regulatory Compliance, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, KY 42301, or call (270) 852–4654.
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with he Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of Extension of Non-Firm Power Formula Rate.
The Western Area Power Administration (Western) extends, on an interim basis, the existing Washoe Project formula rate through September 30, 2017. The existing Non-Firm Power Formula Rate Schedule SNF–7 expires on July 31, 2013. The formula rate will be in effect until the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) places the formula rate into effect on a final basis or until it is replaced by another rate.
This action is effective as of July 31, 2013.
Mr. Thomas R. Boyko, Regional Manager, Sierra Nevada Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630–4710, (916) 353–4418, email:
By Delegation Order No. 00–037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to FERC. This extension is issued pursuant to the Delegation Order and DOE rate extension procedures at 10 CFR 903.23(a).
On April 16, 2009, FERC confirmed and approved the existing formula rate for the Washoe Project, Stampede Division (Project), Non-Firm Power
Rate extensions are authorized under 10 CFR 903.23. Rates previously confirmed and approved by FERC, for which no adjustment is contemplated, may be extended by the Deputy Secretary on an interim basis following notice of proposed extension at least 30 days before expiration.
Following review of Western's proposal within DOE, I hereby approve, on an interim basis, Rate Order No. WAPA–160, which extends, without adjustment, the existing Non-Firm Power Formula Rate Schedule SNF–7 through September 30, 2017. Rate Order No. WAPA–160 will be submitted to FERC for confirmation and approval on a final basis.
Section 302 of the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152) transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy the power marketing functions of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)), and other acts that specifically apply to the project involved.
By Delegation Order No. 00–037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration (Western); (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This extension is issued pursuant to the Delegation Order and DOE rate extension procedures at 10 CFR 903.23(a).
On April 16, 2009, FERC confirmed and approved the existing formula rate for the Washoe Project, Stampede Division (Project), Non-Firm Power Formula Rate Schedule SNF–7,
The Project's Non-Firm Power Formula Rate Schedule SNF–7 expires on July 31, 2013. The formula rate, calculated annually, transfers reimbursable expenses not recovered by contract into the Central Valley Project power revenue requirement. The existing formula rate methodology collects annual revenue sufficient to recover annual expenses, including interest, capital requirements, and deficit recovery, thus ensuring Project repayment within the cost recovery criteria set forth in DOE Order RA 6120.2.
For the extension period, August 1, 2013, through September 30, 2017, there is no adjustment to the formula rate. Under the formula rate, the forecasted annual revenue is $361,000, a reduction of approximately $418,000 from the prior rate period, August 1, 2008, through July 31, 2013, due to completion of deficit repayment. The Project is scheduled to recover the remaining $1.6 million deficit by 2015 and all appropriate costs. Rate Order No. WAPA–160 extends the existing Rate Schedule SNF–7 through September 30, 2017, thereby continuing to ensure Project repayment within the cost recovery criteria.
In view of the above and under the authority delegated to me, I hereby extend, on an interim basis, the existing Non-Firm Power Formula Rate Schedule SNF–7. Rate Order No. WAPA–160 extends, without adjustment, the existing formula rate through September 30, 2017. The formula rate shall be in effect pending the FERC confirmation and approval of this extension or substitute rate on a final basis.
Dated: April 23, 2013.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). This OTC meeting will explore options available for reducing ground-level ozone precursors in a multi-pollutant context. The Commission will be evaluating potential measures and considering actions in areas such as performance standards for electric generating units (EGUs) on high electric demand days, oil and gas boilers serving EGUs, small natural gas boilers, stationary generators, energy security/energy efficiency, architectural industrial and maintenance coatings, consumer products, institution commercial and industrial (ICI) boilers, vapor recovery at gas stations, large
The meeting will be held on June 13, 2013 starting at 9:30 a.m. and ending at 4:00 p.m.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at Section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR) comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The purpose of the OTC is to deal with ground-level ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public comment period.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public comment period for the revised draft document titled, “An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska” (EPA–910–R–12–004Ba–c). The document was revised by the EPA after reviewing comments received from the public between May 18 and July 23, 2012 and input from the peer review panel held in August 2012. The EPA conducted this assessment to determine the significance of Bristol Bay's ecological resources and the potential impacts of large-scale mining on these resources.
The public comment period will begin with the publication of this notice and will end Friday, May 31, 2013. Technical comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by May 31, 2013.
The revised draft “An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska” is available primarily via the Internet on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay Web site at
Comments on the report may be submitted electronically via
For information on the public comment period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202–566–1752; facsimile: 202–566–9744; or email:
For technical information concerning the report, contact Judy Smith; telephone: 503–326–6994; facsimile: 503–326–3399; or email:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted this assessment to provide a characterization of the biological and mineral resources of the Bristol Bay watershed, increase understanding of the potential impacts of large-scale mining on the region's fish resources, and inform future governmental decisions.
A previous draft was released for public comment on May 18, 2012 (77 FR 31353, May 25, 2012). Peer review panel members were announced June 5, 2012 (77 FR 33213, June 5, 2012), and the external peer review meeting was announced July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40037, July 6, 2012). The external peer review meeting was held in Anchorage, AK, August 7–9, 2012. This revised draft was completed by the agency to address public and peer review comments provided on the May 2012 draft.
EPA is releasing this revised draft assessment for the purposes of public comment. This draft assessment is not final as described in EPA's information quality guidelines, and it does not represent and should not be construed to represent Agency policy or views.
EPA is seeking comments from the public on all aspects of the report, including the scientific and technical information presented in the report, the realistic mining scenario used, the data and information used to inform assumptions about mining activities and the evaluations of risk to the fishery, and the potential mitigation measures considered (and effectiveness of those measures). EPA is also specifically seeking any additional data or scientific or technical information about Bristol Bay resources or large-scale mining that should be considered in our evaluation. EPA will consider any public comments submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2013–0189, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Request for information.
The EPA is extending its deadline for the public to submit data and scientific literature to inform EPA's research on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources from April 30, 2013 until November 15, 2013. EPA is extending the deadline in order to provide the public with more of an opportunity to provide feedback to the Agency.
The EPA will accept data and literature in response to this request until November 15, 2013.
Using the online method is preferred for submitting information. Follow the online instructions at
Additional methods for submission are:
•
•
•
•
For further information contact Lisa Matthews, Mail Code 8101R, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564–6669; via fax at: (202) 565–2430; or via email at:
In response to public concern, the U.S. Congress urged the EPA to conduct scientific research to examine the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. The EPA currently has underway a study to understand the potential impacts, if any, of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources and to identify the driving factors that may affect the severity and frequency of any such impacts.
The scope of the study includes the full hydraulic fracturing water lifecycle—from water acquisition, through the mixing of chemicals and injection of fracturing fluids, to the post fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced water and its ultimate treatment and disposal. The study includes a review of the published literature, analysis of existing data, scenario evaluation and modeling, laboratory studies and case studies. A copy of the EPA document entitled,
To ensure that the EPA is up-to-date on evolving hydraulic fracturing practices and technologies, the EPA is soliciting relevant data and scientific literature specific to potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. While the EPA conducts a thorough literature search, there may be studies or other primary technical sources that are not available through the open literature. The EPA would appreciate receiving information from the public to help inform current and future research. Consistent with our commitment to using the highest quality information, The EPA prefers information which has been peer reviewed. Interested persons may provide scientific analyses, studies, and other pertinent scientific information, preferably information which has undergone scientific peer review. The EPA will consider all submissions but will give preference to all peer reviewed data and literature sources.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Proposed guidance with request for comment.
The FDIC is proposing guidance on safe and sound banking practices and consumer protection in connection with deposit advance credit products.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 30, 2013.
•
•
•
•
•
Luke H. Brown, Associate Director, Supervisory Policy, (202) 898–3842; Rae-Ann Miller, Associate Director, Risk Management Policy, (202) 898–3898; Surya Sen, Section Chief, Supervisory Policy, (202) 898–6699; Ardie Hollifield, Senior Policy Analyst, Supervisory Policy, (202) 898–6638; or Louis Bervid, Senior Examination Specialist, Risk Management Policy, (202) 898–6896.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is proposing supervisory guidance to clarify the FDIC's application of principles of safe and sound banking practices and consumer protection in connection with deposit advance products. This proposed guidance details the principles that the FDIC expects FDIC-supervised financial institutions to follow in connection with any deposit advance product to address potential reputational, compliance, legal and credit risks. The FDIC expects institutions to apply the principles set forth in this guidance to any deposit advance product they offer.
A deposit advance product is a small-dollar, short-term loan that a depository institution (bank) makes available to a customer whose deposit account reflects recurring direct deposits. The customer is allowed to take out a loan, which is to be repaid from the proceeds of the next direct deposit. These loans typically have high fees, are repaid in a lump sum in advance of the customer's other bills, and often do not utilize fundamental and prudent banking practices to determine the customer's ability to repay the loan and meet other necessary financial obligations.
The FDIC continues to encourage banks to respond to customers' small-dollar credit needs; however, banks should be aware that deposit advance products can pose a variety of safety and soundness, compliance, consumer protection, and other risks. The FDIC is proposing guidance to ensure that any bank offering these products does so in a safe and sound manner and does not engage in practices that would increase credit, compliance, legal, and reputation risks to the institution.
The text of the proposed Supervisory guidance on deposit advance products follows:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is proposing supervisory guidance to depository institutions (banks) that offer deposit advance products. This guidance is intended to ensure that banks are aware of the significant risks associated with deposit advance products. The guidance
The maximum dollar amount of the advance is typically limited to a percent or amount of the recurring monthly deposit. For example, some banks permit the deposit advance to be the lesser of $500 or 50 percent of the scheduled direct deposits from the preceding statement cycle, rounded up to the nearest $10. The advance limit does not include the fee associated with the advance. In addition, some banks will allow the advance even if the customer's account is currently overdrawn. Some banks also permit a customer to exceed the advance limit, at the bank's discretion.
Typically, the bank does not analyze the customer's ability to repay the loan based on recurring debits or other indications of a need for residual income to pay other bills. The decision to advance credit to borrowers, based solely on the amount and frequency of their deposits, stands in contrast to banks' traditional underwriting standards for other products, which typically include an assessment of the ability to repay the loan based on an analysis of the borrower's finances.
If the deposit account funds are insufficient to repay the fee and the advance, then the account goes into overdraft status. Some banks will charge an overdraft fee based on the deposit advance overdrawing the account. Other banks will only charge overdraft fees based on any subsequent transactions that overdraw the account.
Although the deposit advance limit is based on an amount or percentage of the monthly deposit, the repayment can be based on a shorter time period. For example, if a customer receives direct deposits of $500 every other Friday from her employer, her monthly direct deposit would be $1000. Under the typical bank's advance limit, she could receive an advance of $500 with a fee of $50. If she obtains the deposit advance on the Thursday before her payday, then the bank will obtain repayment on Friday. The bank will take the entire $500 paycheck. In addition, the customer will still owe $50 in principal because the deposit was only sufficient to pay the $50 fee and $450 in principal. Assuming the customer has no other source of income, the customer will need to rely on savings to pay bills until the next paycheck. At the next paycheck, the bank will take the remaining $50 in principal and the customer will have $450 to pay all outstanding bills.
Some banks have implemented alternative repayment methods that provide more flexibility to the customer. For example, some banks will permit repayment to extend through to the second direct deposit if the first direct deposit falls below a specific dollar threshold. In addition, some banks allow payment by mail rather than electronic transfer, but may charge a fee for this option. Finally, some banks offer an installment loan option, but may also charge an additional fee or may only offer this option if the customer cannot repay the advance and fee from the monthly deposits.
Although the FDIC encourages banks to respond to customers' small-dollar credit needs, deposit advance products pose supervisory risks. These products share a number of characteristics seen in traditional payday loans, including: high fees; very short, lump-sum repayment terms; and inadequate attention to the consumer's ability to repay. As such, banks need to be aware of these products' potential to harm consumers, as well as elevated safety and soundness, compliance, and consumer protection risks.
The combined impact of an expensive credit product coupled with short repayment periods increases the risk that borrowers could be caught in a cycle of high-cost borrowing over an extended period of time. Specifically, deposit advance customers may repeatedly take out loans because they are unable to fully repay the balance in one pay period while also meeting typical recurring and other necessary expenses (e.g., housing, food, and transportation). Customers may feel compelled to take out another loan very soon thereafter to make up for the shortfall. This cycle is referred to as the “churning” of loans and is similar to the practice of “loan flipping” that the OCC, the FDIC and the Board, have previously noted to be an element of predatory lending.
To address concerns that certain borrowers become dependent on deposit advance products to meet their daily expenses (as evidenced by their repeated borrowings), certain lenders now require borrowers who have taken out a specified number of deposit advance loans within a certain time frame to wait for a specified period before they are eligible to take out a new loan. However, the FDIC is concerned these “cooling-off” periods can be easily avoided and are ineffective in preventing repeated usage of these high-cost, short-term loans.
Weak underwriting increases the risk that the borrower's account may become overdrawn and result in multiple overdraft fees when subsequent transactions are presented for payment. Some banks assess overdraft fees when the automatic repayment of the deposit advance loan causes the associated account to reflect a negative balance.
Numerous and repeated extensions of credit to the same individual may be substantially similar to continuous advances and subject the bank to increased credit risk. While re-aging, extensions, deferrals, renewals, and rewrites of lending products can be used to help borrowers overcome temporary financial difficulties, repeated re-aging credit practices can cloud the true performance and delinquency status of the portfolio.
Relying on the amount of the customer's incoming deposits without consideration of expected outflows does not allow for a proper assessment of the customer's ability to repay the loan and other necessary expenses. This failure to properly assess the borrower's financial capacity, a basic underwriting principle, increases default risk.
Deposit advance products must comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations, some of which are outlined below. State laws also may be applicable, including usury laws and laws on unfair or deceptive acts or practices. It is important that banks have their deposit advance products reviewed by counsel for compliance with all applicable laws prior to implementation. Furthermore, although the guidance below outlines federal laws and regulations as of the date this guidance is published, applicable laws and regulations are subject to amendment. In addition, statutes and regulations will have different applications depending on how a deposit advance product is structured. Banks offering deposit advances should carefully consider whether and how these laws and rules will apply to the particular version of a deposit advance product they are providing. Accordingly, banks should monitor applicable laws and regulations for revisions and to ensure that their deposit advance product is fully compliant. Federal laws and regulations applicable to deposit advance products include, but are not limited to, the following:
Deposit advance products may raise issues under the FTC Act depending upon how the products are marketed and implemented. Any FTC Act analysis will be dependent on the facts and circumstances in a particular matter.
The prohibition on UDAP applies not only to the product, but to every stage and activity, from product development to the creation and rollout of marketing campaigns, and to servicing and collections. For example, marketing materials and disclosures should be clear, conspicuous, accurate and timely; and should fairly and adequately describe the terms, benefits, potential risks and material limitations of the product.
In addition to the general prohibition against discrimination, ECOA and Regulation B contain specific rules concerning procedures and notices for credit denials and other adverse actions. Regulation B defines the term “adverse action,” and generally requires a creditor who takes an adverse action to send a notice to the consumer providing, among other things, the reasons for the adverse action.
Deposit advance lending presents significant consumer protection and safety and soundness concerns, irrespective of whether the products are issued by a bank directly or by third parties. The FDIC will take appropriate supervisory action to prevent harm to consumers, to address any unsafe or unsound banking practices associated with these products, and to ensure compliance with all applicable laws. Examinations will focus on compliance with applicable consumer protection statutes and potential safety and soundness issues.
Examiners will assess credit quality, including underwriting and credit administration policies and practices. In addition, examiners will assess the adequacy of capital, reliance on fee income, and adequacy of the allowance for loan and lease losses. Compliance with applicable federal consumer protection statutes, management's oversight, and relationships with third-parties will also be assessed.
Deposit advance loans often have weaknesses that may jeopardize the liquidation of the debt. Borrowers often have limited repayment capacity. Banks should adequately review repayment capacity to assess whether borrowers will be able to repay the loan without
Deposit advance loans that have been accessed repeatedly or for extended periods of time are evidence of “churning” and inadequate underwriting. Banks should monitor for repeated or extended use, as will be discussed in greater detail in the discussion of underwriting expectations below.
Bank policies regarding the underwriting of deposit advance loan products should be written and approved by the bank's board of directors, and consistent with the bank's general underwriting standards and risk appetite. Factors a bank should address in its written underwriting policies for deposit advance products include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
•
•
•
○ An analysis of the customer's account for recurring deposits (inflows) and checks/credit/customer withdrawals (outflows) over at least six consecutive months. Lines of credit of any sort, including overdrafts, and drafts from savings should not be considered inflows. In reviewing customers' transactions to determine deposit advance eligibility, the bank should consider the customers' net surplus or deficit at the end of each of the preceding six months, and not rely on a six-month transaction average.
○ After conducting the above described analysis, determine whether an installment repayment is more appropriate.
•
•
•
○ Repeated overdrafts (establish/set a certain number during a specified number of months).
○ Evidence that the borrower is overextended with respect to total credit obligations.
Banks should maintain adequate oversight of deposit advance programs and adequate quality control over those products and services to minimize exposure to potential significant financial loss, reputation damage, and supervisory action. Management should provide the appropriate oversight and allocate sufficient qualified staff to monitor deposit advance programs. Results of oversight activities should be reported periodically to the financial institution's board of directors or designated committee, including identified weaknesses, which should be documented and promptly addressed.
The FDIC recognizes the need for responsible small-dollar credit products among consumers. A number of banks are currently offering reasonably priced small-dollar loans at reasonable terms to their customers. The FDIC's 2007
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 May 15, 2013.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291:
1.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing this notice pursuant to section 564(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3(b)(4). On April 19, 2013, the Secretary determined that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves the avian influenza A (H7N9) virus.
On the basis of this determination, she also declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection of the avian influenza A (H7N9) virus pursuant to section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb–3(b)(1), subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section. The Secretary also specified that this declaration is a declaration of an emergency with respect to in vitro diagnostics as defined under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act Declaration for Pandemic Influenza Diagnostics, Personal Respiratory Protection Devices, and Respiratory Support Devices signed by then Secretary Michael Leavitt on December 17, 2008.
The determination and declaration are effective April 19, 2013.
Nicole Lurie, M.D., MSPH, Assistant
Under Section 564 of the FD&C Act, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), acting under delegated authority from the Secretary of HHS, may issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA): (1) Authorizing the emergency use of an unapproved drug, an unapproved or uncleared device, or an unlicensed biological product; or (2) an unapproved use of an approved drug, approved or cleared device, or licensed biological product. Before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare an emergency justifying the authorization based on one of four determinations: (1) A determination of a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, by the Secretary of Homeland Security; (2) the identification of a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act
Based on any of these four determinations, the Secretary of HHS may then declare that circumstances exist that justify the EUA, at which point the FDA Commissioner may issue an EUA if the criteria for issuance of an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act are met.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HHS, requested that the FDA, HHS, issue an EUA for in vitro diagnostics for detection of the avian influenza A (H7N9) virus to allow the Department to take preparedness measures based on information currently available about the avian influenza A (H7N9) virus detected in China. The determination of a significant potential for a public health emergency, and the declaration that circumstances exist justifying emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection of the avian influenza A (H7N9) virus by the Secretary of HHS, as described below, enable the FDA Commissioner to issue an EUA for certain in vitro diagnostics for emergency use under section 564(a) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3(a).
On April 19, 2013, pursuant to section 564(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C), I determined that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves the avian influenza A (H7N9) virus.
Also on April 19, 2013, on the basis of my determination of a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves the avian influenza A (H7N9) virus, I declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection of the avian influenza A (H7N9) virus pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section.
I also specified that this declaration is a declaration of an emergency with respect to in vitro diagnostics as defined under the PREP Act Declaration for Pandemic Influenza Diagnostics, Personal Respiratory Protection Devices, and Respiratory Support Devices signed by then Secretary Michael Leavitt on December 17, 2008.
Notice of the EUAs issued by the FDA Commissioner pursuant to this determination and declaration will be provided promptly in the
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying data that were included in one (1) presentation and one (1) report to NIAID and in laboratory records at Liquid Logic.
ORI finds that Respondent knowingly and intentionally falsified reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT–PCR) results by reporting the results from previous experiments as the actual results, when the experiments had not been performed. Specifically:
• In Liquid Logic laboratory documents, the Respondent falsified the RT–PCR results of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral loads in whole blood patient samples by falsely changing previous results for two (2) samples from negative to positive and one (1) sample from positive to negative. The latter falsified sample result, changed from HIV positive to negative, was included in an April 1–June 30, 2012, quarterly report and a July 12, 2012, presentation to NIAID.
• In Liquid Logic laboratory documents, the Respondent falsified the RT–PCR whole blood lysis results of testing samples as 100 and 200 HIV viral copies per milliliter, when the experiments were not performed by the Respondent. These falsified results were
• In Liquid Logic laboratory documents, the Respondent falsified the graphs of RT–PCR results of the
Mr. Poore has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement and has voluntarily agreed for a period of three (3) years, beginning on April 1, 2013:
(1) To have his research supervised; Respondent agreed that prior to the submission of an application for U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) support for a research project on which his participation is proposed and prior to his participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of his duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of his research contribution; he agreed that he shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan; and
(2) To exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453–8200.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) will hold a meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, and Thursday, May 23, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Department of Health and Human Services; Hubert H. Humphrey Building; 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 800; Washington, DC 20201. For a map and directions to the Hubert H. Humphrey building, please visit
Nancy C. Lee, M.D., Designated Federal Officer, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 712E, Washington, DC 20201. Any questions about meeting registration or public comment sign-up should be directed to
CFSAC was established on September 5, 2002, to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on a broad range of topics including: (1) The current state of knowledge and research and the relevant gaps in knowledge and research about the epidemiology, etiologies, biomarkers, and risk factors relating to CFS, and identifying potential opportunities in these areas; (2) impact and implications of current and proposed diagnosis and treatment methods for CFS; (3) development and implementation of programs to inform the public, health care professionals, and the biomedical academic and research communities about CFS advances; and (4) partnering to improve the quality of life of CFS patients.
The agenda for this meeting is being developed and will be posted on the CFSAC Web site,
Individuals who plan to attend should register at the following link by May 17, 2013:
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide public comment at the meeting or via telephone. International calls cannot be accommodated. You are no longer required to submit a written copy of your testimony as in past years unless you wish to have it included in the public record. Individuals wishing to submit public comment for public record must send an electronic copy of their testimony in advance to:
Only testimony submitted for public record and received in advance of the meeting are part of the official meeting record and will be posted to the CFSAC Web site. Materials submitted should not include sensitive personal information, such as social security number, birthdates, driver's license number, state identification or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. If you wish to remain anonymous the document must specify this.
We will confirm your time for public comment via email by May 17, 2013. Each speaker will be limited to five minutes per speaker; no exceptions will be made. We will give priority to individuals who have not provided public comment within the previous year.
Persons who wish to distribute printed materials to CFSAC members should submit one copy for approval to the Designated Federal Officer at
Office of Minority Health, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of a virtual public meeting.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is hereby giving notice that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health (ACMH) will be held virtually. This virtual meeting will take place via webinar and audio video conferencing technology. This meeting will be open to the public. Preregistration is required for both virtual public participation and comment. Any individual who wishes to participate in the virtual public meeting and/or in the public comment session should preregister at the following email address:
The meeting will be held virtually on Thursday, May 16, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (EST).
The meeting will be conducted virtually only.
Ms. Monica A. Baltimore, Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Phone: 240–453–2882; Fax: 240–453–2883.
In accordance with Public Law 105–392, the ACMH was established to provide advice to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority Health in improving the health of each racial and ethnic minority group and on the development of goals and specific program activities of the Office of Minority Health.
Topics to be discussed during this meeting will include patient protections, consumer assistance, and the Affordable Care Act. The Committee will also discuss strategies to improve the health of racial and ethnic minority populations through the development of health policies and programs that will help eliminate health disparities.
To participate in this meeting, please follow the instructions below:
(1) Participants are asked to dial in 15 minutes prior to the scheduled start time.
(2) For audio, participant Dial-in Numbers:
This webinar will be limited to 125 participants. The Office of Minority Health will make every effort to accommodate persons with special needs. Individuals who have special needs for which special accommodations may be required should contact Professional and Scientific Associates at (703) 234–1700 and reference this meeting. Requests for special accommodations should be made at least ten (10) business days prior to the meeting.
Webinar Instructions:
Members of the public will have an opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Public comments will be limited to two minutes per speaker during the time allotted. Individuals who would like to submit written statements should mail or fax their comments to the Office of Minority Health at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting.
Public Comment: To participate during the public comment session please follow instructions below:
Any members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to ACMH members should submit their materials to the Executive Director, ACMH, Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852, prior to close of business Tuesday, May 7, 2013.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
42 U.S.C. 300u(a).
Notice.
The Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) Subcommittee, an entity within the federal Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research, has developed procedures jointly with its Canadian counterpart to allow interested parties to nominate nutrients for consideration for DRI review. This notice will serve to announce the opportunity to submit such information to the DRI Subcommittee as it considers updates for nutrients and food components that have previously been considered by Institute of Medicine DRI committees.
The DRI Subcommittee will accept nominations for consideration beginning April 29, 2013 through 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 31, 2013.
Nominations may be submitted by email in the required format and to the email addresses specified in the Dietary Reference Intakes page on the Web site:
Yvonne Chow, Division of Nutrition Research Coordination, National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health; Room 624A, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817; Telephone: (301) 594–8821; Email:
The DRI Subcommittee, in collaboration with its Canadian counterpart, has been responsible for prioritizing nutrients for federally-funded DRI reviews that establish nutrient reference values. Given the completion in 2011 of the most recent DRI review which was conducted by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences, the DRI Subcommittee is now considering future reviews. The increasingly broad range of uses of the DRIs warrants input to the DRI Subcommittee concerning nutrients of interest for such reviews. Input from all interested parties is welcome and may come from individuals and organizations external to the federal government as well as from federal agencies.
The opportunity to provide information is limited at this time to new reviews for nutrients and food components that have previously been considered by Institute of Medicine DRI committees. The nomination is to include a cover letter and a literature search. The requirements of the nomination package and the nomination procedures are specified in the Web site identified above in the
Part A, Office of the Secretary, Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is being amended at Chapter AN, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), as last amended at 78 FR 7784, dated February 4, 2013, and at 75 FR 35035–35038, dated June 21, 2010. This organizational change is to rename the Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations (ANC), establish five Divisions under the Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations (ANC), and rename one existing Division. The changes are as follows.
I. Under Part A, Chapter AN, Section AN.10, Organization, rename “Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations” to “Office of Emergency Management.”
II. Under Part A, Chapter AN, Section AN.20, Functions, Paragraph C, Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations (ANC):
a. Replace all references to the “Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations” and “OPEO” with the “Office of Emergency Management” and “OEM,” respectively.
b. Rename “Division of Mass Care (ANC1)” as “Division of National Hospital Preparedness (ANC1).”
c. At the end of Paragraph C, add the following sub-components:
II. Delegations of Authority. All delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegation, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404–639–7570 or send comments to Kimberly S. Lane, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D–74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Community Transformation Grants (CTG) Context Scan Surveys—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Obesity currently affects more than one-third of adults and approximately 17 percent of children in the United States. Obese children and teens are likely to remain so into adulthood, and are at risk for developing severe health conditions such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, and certain cancers. As one of the most dire and fastest growing health-related problems, obesity prevention has become a public health priority.
Physical activity and dietary behaviors are known to impact obesity. Importantly, research has shown that
Given the high proportion of children enrolled, and the substantial amount of time children spend in schools and childcare centers, these settings are natural targets for policy and environment changes to improve nutrition and physical activity. CDC and others have recommended strategies to decrease sedentary time, increase the quantity and quality of physical activity, improve nutrition standards, and decrease the availability of less healthy foods. Numerous governmental and non-governmental initiatives are underway to support improved policies and environments, but little is known about the barriers and facilitators to this work, and the overall community context in which these initiatives are occurring.
In fiscal year 2011, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) funded the Community Transformation Grants (CTG) Program (CDC–RFA–DP11–1103PPHF11) to address the root causes of chronic disease. CTG grants were awarded to state and local governments, tribes and territories, and nonprofit organizations to help individuals lead healthier lives. As mandated by the ACA, CDC is conducting a national evaluation of the CTG Program that includes the following components: (1) Local Evaluation, (2) Performance Monitoring, (3) Population-level Surveillance, (4) Enhanced Evaluation Studies, (5) Cost Studies, (6) Simulation Modeling, and (7) Context Scan (policy and community characteristics).
The Context Scan will capture information on social determinants within communities, such as population density, community resources for active living and health eating, and nutrition and physical activity policies and environments in middle schools and childcare centers. It will include (1) Examining policies and environments in school and childcare settings (including review of school and childcare policies and administration of the Context Scan Surveys); (2) examining policies and environments in the community (including review of policies addressing the nutrition and built environments and observation of public food environments such as grocery and convenience stores) and (3) extraction of data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other publically available data sources.
The Context Scan Surveys will employ longitudinal data collection to document and monitor changes in nutrition and physical activity policies and environments in childcare centers and middle schools over time. The surveys will be implemented once per year over a four-year period with childcare center directors, middle school principals, and school food service personnel. A three-year Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance period is requested to support the first three years of the data collection.
The surveys include the (1) Childcare Center Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (CCNPAS), (2) School Principal Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (SPNPAS), and (3) School Food Service Nutrition Survey (SFSNS). A mixed-mode methodology will be used to recruit respondents; schools and centers will be identified from publically available lists.
The specific aims of the Context Scan Surveys, and related evaluation questions, are as follows:
A. Document policies and environments related to nutrition and physical activity in middle schools and childcare centers located in 20 CTG awardees.
1. Evaluation Question 1: What are the policies and environments related to nutrition and physical activity in middle schools?
2. Evaluation Question 2: What are the policies and environments related to nutrition and physical activity in childcare centers?
B. Monitor changes in policies and environments related to nutrition and physical activity in childcare centers and middle schools over time.
1. Evaluation Question 3: How do policies and environments related to nutrition and physical activity in middle schools change over time within and across awardees?
2. Evaluation Question 4: How do policies and environments related to nutrition and physical activity in childcare centers change over time within and across awardees?
The 20 CTG awardees selected for this study were identified based on their commitment to implementing comprehensive active living and healthy eating interventions and the diverse geographic and demographic contexts within their communities.
The study universe for these 20 communities includes 970 public middle schools and 4,362 licensed childcare centers in 871 intervention area zip codes. The study design will adopt implicit stratification coupled with probability proportional to size (PPS) systematic sampling with zip code areas serving as primary sampling units. The measure of size for PPS sampling will be the number of childcare centers in each zip code area and the resulting sample size will consist of 120 zip codes.
Participation in the surveys is voluntary. There are no costs to respondents other than time. The surveys will be hosted by the secure online survey-hosting site, Survey Monkey. All surveys will be Web-based, with paper options available as needed. Data from the Context Scan Surveys will provide the CDC with the ability to track policy and environment change over time across and within communities. When combined with other Context Scan and CTG national evaluation datasets, the Context Scan Survey data will provide a comprehensive understanding of the community environments in which CTG interventions are occurring, an evidence-base for policy and environmental change strategies to promote healthy eating and active lifestyles, and an identification of the factors that facilitate and inhibit policy and environmental initiatives.
The estimated burden for each survey response is 15 minutes. Pilot tests were performed to inform burden estimates and ensure relevance of questions to respondents.
The meeting announced below concerns Evaluation of Treatments and Services Provided to People with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), FOA DD13–002, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 1, 2013.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Drive, PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796–3794,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
On November 16, 1988, the President signed into law the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Restoration Act (GADPTRA) (Pub. L. 100–670). Under section 512(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by GADPTRA, any person may file an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) seeking approval of a generic copy of an approved new animal drug. The information required to be submitted as part of an abbreviated application is described in section 512(n)(1) of the FD&C Act. Among other things, an abbreviated application is required to contain information to show that the proposed generic drug is bioequivalent to, and has the same labeling as, the approved drug referenced in the abbreviated application. FDA allows applicants to submit a complete ANADA or to submit information in support of an ANADA for phased review followed by the submission of an Administrative ANADA when FDA finds that all the applicable technical sections for an ANADA are complete. FDA requests that an applicant accompany ANADAs and requests for phased review of data to support ANADAs with the Form FDA 356v to ensure efficient and accurate processing of information to support approval of the generic new animal drug.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Although over the last 5 fiscal years all sponsors chose to submit traditional ANADAs, some sponsors did indicate an interest in using the phased review option in the future. FDA believes that with time, more and more sponsors will take advantage of the phased review option, as it provides greater flexibility, and estimates that there will be three respondents for the phased review option. FDA also estimates that sponsors of ANADAs take approximately 25 percent less time to put together the information to support an ANADA than a new animal drug application (NADA) because they only need to provide evidence of bioequivalence and not the data required in an NADA to support a full demonstration of safety and effectiveness.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and, when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxis, hotel, and airport shuttles, will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: (
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 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.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
SAMHSA's Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs will request OMB approval for the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form for federal agency and federally regulated drug testing programs which must comply with the HHS Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (73 FR 71858) dated November 25, 2008, and for the information provided by laboratories for the National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP).
The Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form is used by all federal agencies and employers regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to document the collection and chain of custody of urine specimens at the collection site, for laboratories to report results, and for Medical Review Officer (MRO) to make a determination. The Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form approved by OMB three years ago is being resubmitted for OMB approval without any revision.
The ONLY change is the number of respondents which has been reduced from 7.1 to a total of 6.1 million; which reduces the total burden hours of −240,480.
Prior to an inspection, a laboratory is required to submit specific information regarding its laboratory procedures. Collecting this information prior to an inspection allows the inspectors to thoroughly review and understand the laboratory's testing procedures before arriving at the laboratory.
The NLCP application form has not been revised compared to the previous form. The annual total burden estimates for the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form, the NLCP application, the NLCP inspection checklist, and NLCP recordkeeping requirements are shown in the following table.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 2–1057, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to update and reissue a current Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency—008 Disaster Recovery Assistance Files System of Records.” This system of records allows the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency to collect and maintain records on applicants for its Disaster Assistance programs that provide financial and other tangible assistance to survivors of Presidentially-declared disasters. As a
Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice. This updated system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
Submit comments on or before May 30, 2013. This updated system will be effective May 30, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS–2013–0029 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Eric M. Leckey, 202–212–5100, Privacy Officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. For privacy questions, please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, 202–343–1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to update and reissue an existing system of records entitled, “DHS/FEMA—008 Disaster Recovery Assistance Files System of Records,” 74 FR 48763 (September 24, 2009).
This system of records notice is being published because FEMA collects, maintains, uses, retrieves, and disseminates the personally identifiable information (PII) of individuals who apply for FEMA disaster assistance in the aftermath of a Presidentially-declared disaster. FEMA's applicant records included in this system may contain income information, insurance information, housing inspection reports, and correspondence notations about the various types of assistance, including information about appeals, and other information.
The purpose of this system of records is to facilitate registration for FEMA's disaster assistance programs, to verify IHP applicant information, determine eligibility of the applicants, and to focus, direct, refer, and correspond applicants to all sources of disaster assistance. Additional purposes include identifying and implementing measures to reduce future disaster damage, preventing a duplication of federal government efforts and benefits, and identifying possible fraudulent activity after a Presidentially-declared disaster or emergency. Finally, information from this system of records may be used to facilitate FEMA's efforts to assess the customer service it provides to those receiving FEMA assistance.
FEMA collects, uses, maintains, retrieves, and disseminates the records within this system under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), Pub. L. No. 93–288, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121–5207); 6 U.S.C. 776–77, and 795; the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. 3325(d) and 7701(c)(1); the Government Performance and Results Act, Pub. L. No. 103–62, as amended; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978; Executive Order 13411, “Improving Assistance for Disaster Victims,” dated August 29, 2006; and Executive Order 12862 “Setting Customer Service Standards,” dated September 11, 2003, as described in this notice.
This updated system of records provides greater transparency by encompassing all of FEMA's disaster assistance records, including those records related to IHP, as well as the customer service survey assessments within a single system of records.
This system of records notice is being published pursuant to the biennial review requirement under the Privacy Act of 1974. Specific updates are described below:
First, FEMA is expanding the purpose of the system to account for all FEMA assistance that applicants may be eligible to receive, not just IHP records, and to explicitly include customer satisfaction assessments. This change is necessary to account for records of various FEMA assistance programs that individuals may receive within this system of records. Second, the categories of records have been updated to reflect the discontinuation of FEMA's Other Needs Assistance forms (specifically, forms numbered 76–27, 76–28, 76–30, 76–32, 76–34, 76–35, 76–38, and related forms). The accompanying approved collection (OMB ICR No. 1660–0018) has also been retired to reflect FEMA's discontinuation of these forms. The categories of records have been further revised to include information that FEMA maintains about disaster assistance applicants from other FEMA programs and third-parties concerning financial payments that applicants received from other sources for similar purposes. This is necessary to prevent a duplication of benefits as mandated by the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5174, and 44 CFR 206.191, to better address situations in which a private entity is wholly or partially responsible for a declared disaster under the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5160, and to ensure that applicants can receive assistance from additional and available sources. In addition, the categories of records no longer refers to a specific form entitled, “Inspection Report FEMA Form 90–56.” This has been replaced with the more inclusive “Inspection Reports” to reflect
This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.
Below is the description of the DHS/FEMA–008 Disaster Recovery Assistance Files System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)–008
DHS/FEMA–008 Disaster Recovery Assistance Files System of Records.
Unclassified.
National Processing Service Centers (NPSC) located at FEMA MD–NPSC, 6511 America Boulevard, Hyattsville, MD 20782; FEMA VA–NPSC, 430 Market Street, Winchester, VA 22603; and FEMA TX–NPSC, 3900 Karina Lane, Denton, TX 76208. In addition, FEMA's Disaster Assistance Improvement Program (DAIP), National Emergency Management Information System–Individual Assistance (NEMIS–IA), and Enterprise Data Warehouse/Operational Data Store (EDW/ODS) information technology systems may contain these records.
All individuals who apply for or express interest in applying for FEMA disaster assistance following a Presidentially-declared major disaster or emergency. (Note: FEMA will accept applications from any individual, however, an individual must be a United States citizen, non-citizen national, or qualified alien to meet the eligibility requirements for Individuals and Households Program assistance.)
(a) Registration Records (Disaster Assistance Pre-Registration Intake Form, Disaster Assistance Registration/Application, FEMA Form(s) 009–0–1, 009–0–2, 009–0–1t, 009–0–1int, and 009–0–2int):
• Individual applicant's full name;
• Applicant's Social Security Number, alien registration number, co-applicant's Social Security Number;
• Date of birth;
• Phone numbers;
• Email addresses;
• Addresses (damaged dwelling address and any other current address if different than damaged dwelling address);
• Geospatial location of dwelling;
• Language(s) spoken;
• Date of disaster and/or property loss including cause of damage and estimates of repair;
• Current location;
• Name of each disaster (disaster number);
• Income information;
• Acceptable forms of identification (e.g., driver's license, state/federal issued photo identification);
• Emergency or other needs of the individual (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical, dental, moving, storage, funeral, functional);
• Type of residence;
• Insurance coverage information including insurance type and insurance company name;
• Household size and composition including number, age, and dependent status;
• Bank name and account information including electronic funds transfer information; and
• Right of entry to property consent and other written consents.
(b) Inspection Reports:
• Inspection reports contain applicants' personally identifiable information (PII) and results of assessments of damaged real and personal property and goods, which may include applicant homes and personal items and notations of clearing of muck and debris by contractors and partnering agencies.
(c) Temporary Housing Assistance Eligibility Determinations (FEMA Forms 009–0–5, and 009–0–6) and Application for Continued Temporary Housing Assistance (FEMA Form 010–0–12), Request for Site Inspection (FEMA FORM 010–0–9), Landowners Ingress/Egress Agreement (FEMA FORM 010–0–10), as well as the following related information:
• Correspondence and documentation related to the approval and disapproval of temporary housing assistance including: General correspondence; complaints, appeals, and resolutions; requests for disbursement of payments; inquiries from tenants and landlords; general administrative and fiscal information; payment schedules and forms; termination notices; information shared with the temporary housing program staff from other agencies to prevent the duplication of benefits; leases; contracts; specifications for repair of disaster damaged residences; reasons for eviction or denial of aid; sales information after tenant purchase of housing units; and the status or disposition of housing applications.
(d) Assistance from Other Sources:
• Notations and reports of decisions for disaster or similar financial awards and assistance from other FEMA Programs, federal and state agencies, insurance companies, employer, bank, financial, power/utility companies, health care providers, safety/rescue services, and public or private entities as they relate to determinations of applicants' eligibility for IHP programs disaster assistance;
• Correspondence between the applicant and FEMA concerning disaster assistance determinations and subsequent appeals and/or arbitration of such determinations; and
• Other files independently kept by the state that contain records of persons who request disaster aid, specifically for the “Other Needs” assistance provision of the IHP administrative files and reports required by FEMA. As to individuals, the state keeps the same type of information as described above under registration, inspection, and temporary housing assistance records.
(e) Declaration and Release Form (009–0–3, 009–0–4).
(f) Customer service survey responses.
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), Public Law 93–288, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121–5207); 6 U.S.C. 776–777, and 795; the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. 3325(d) and 7701(c)(1); the Government Performance and Results Act, Public Law 103–62, as amended; Executive Order 13411 “Improving Assistance to Disaster Victims,” dated August 29, 2006; and Executive Order 12862 “Setting Customer Service Standards,” dated September 11, 2003.
To register applicants seeking disaster assistance from FEMA, to verify IHP applicant information, determine eligibility of the applicants, to focus, direct, refer, and correspond applicants to all sources of disaster assistance, and to inspect damaged property. Additional purposes include: to identify and implement measures to reduce future disaster damage, to prevent a duplication of federal government efforts and benefits, identify possible fraudulent activity after a Presidentially-declared disaster or emergency, and to assess the customer satisfaction of FEMA disaster assistance applicants.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS/FEMA as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows upon request unless noted otherwise:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including U.S. Attorney Offices, or other federal agencies conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. any employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. any employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. the U.S. or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. §§ 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with FEMA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for FEMA, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to FEMA officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person receiving the information.
H. To certain government, private sector, and voluntary entities when FEMA may disclose applicant information necessary to prevent a duplication of efforts or a duplication of benefits in determining eligibility for disaster assistance, and/or to address unmet needs of eligible, ineligible, or partially eligible FEMA applicants. The receiving entity is not permitted to alter or to further disclose the information to other disaster organizations or outside third parties. FEMA may make such disclosures under the following circumstances:
1. To other federal agencies, and agencies of states, tribal, and local governments, including programs that make available any disaster assistance to individuals and households and/or give preference of priority to disaster applicants, including those that evacuate from a declared state to another state and to prevent a duplication of efforts or benefits. State agencies may request and receive information using the protocols established in an appropriate FEMA-state agreement as defined in 44 CFR 206.44. Federal and state government agencies may share information they receive from FEMA with their contractors/grantees, and/or agents that are administering a disaster related program on behalf of the Agency (e.g., other state, tribal, and local agencies working under the guise of the requesting state agency) according to the same protocols and safeguards protecting the information.
2. To local government agencies, voluntary organizations (as defined in 44 CFR 206.2(a)(27)), and FEMA- and/or state- recognized Long Term Recovery Committees (LTRC) and their members for a declared county charged through legislation or chartered with administering disaster relief/assistance programs. The written request from the entity shall include the applicant's name, date of birth, FEMA registration/application number, and damaged dwelling address (or geospatial location of dwelling). The entity must explain the type of tangible assistance being offered and the type of verification required before the assistance can be provided.
3. To local government agencies, utility companies, hospitals/health care providers, and voluntary organizations (as defined at 44 CFR 206.2(a)(27)). The voluntary organization must either have a national membership in good standing with the National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD), be a FEMA or state recognized Long-Term Recovery Committee (LTRC), or member of such committee for that disaster. The above-mentioned entities must have a disaster assistance program to address the unmet disaster-related needs of disaster survivors and be actively involved in the recovery efforts of the disaster. FEMA may disclose to the above mentioned entities lists of applicant names, contact information, their FEMA inspected loss amount, amounts received, award category, and Small Business Administration loan status for the purpose of providing additional disaster assistance and/or addressing unmet needs. FEMA may disclose the aforementioned data elements according to different sub-categories of disaster applicants (e.g., those that received maximum amounts, those that have flood insurance coverage, those with emergency needs, or those over a certain age). FEMA shall release this information only during the disaster period of assistance as defined in 44 CFR 206.110(e), plus 90 days to address any appeals (44 CFR 206.115(f)).
4. FEMA may immediately disclose, on a case by case basis, to an entity qualified under Routine Use (H)(3), and to entities that loan or donate new or reused durable medical equipment and assistive technology, information about applicants in need of such equipment or technology as a result of a declared disaster, if the applicant in question has an immediate need for durable medical equipment or assistive technology, and the qualifying entity is able to provide the assistance in question. An immediate need is one that is of such urgency or severity that one could reasonably expect the absence of the durable medical equipment or assistive technology to place the health of the applicant in serious jeopardy, to compromise the safety of the applicant, or prevent the applicant from relocating from a shelter facility to the next stage of recovery.
Specifically, FEMA may release the applicant's name and limited contact information (telephone number, email address, and if being delivered to a location other than a shelter, the current address and/or geospatial location data). A written request is not necessary in this situation; however, FEMA shall provide a written letter (or email) along with the information to the receiving entity, and in turn the receiving entity shall acknowledge receipt of message that it has received the information and has contacted the applicant. In addition, the entity will confirm that it has taken the steps to protect the information provided.
5. To a private sector entity/business for the purpose of administering, coordinating, and/or providing tangible assistance to the entity's employees who have applied for assistance to address their disaster-related losses. The request from the private sector entity/business must include its employees' names, dates of birth, damaged dwelling addresses, and the types of tangible assistance the entity is offering its employees. FEMA shall only release the contact information of those applicants who are employed by the requesting entity. FEMA shall release this information only during the disaster period of assistance as defined in 44 CFR § 206.110(e).
6. To organizations that are able to provide durable medical equipment and assistive technology to applicants in need of such devices as a result of a declared disaster. FEMA may disclose applicants' name and contact information to include the current address and phone number.
7. To federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies for the purpose of contacting FEMA IHP applicants to seek their voluntary participation in surveys or studies concerning effects of disasters, program effectiveness, and to identify possible ways to improve community preparedness and resiliency for future disasters.
I. To federal, state, tribal, or local government agencies; voluntary organizations; insurance companies; employers; any public or private entities; banks and financial institutions when an applicant's eligibility, in whole or in part, for FEMA's IHP depends upon financial benefits already received or available from that source for similar purposes as necessary to determine benefits; and to prevent duplication of disaster assistance benefits (as described in 42 U.S.C. 5155 of the Stafford Act). FEMA initiates the transaction by only disclosing the name, address, and date of birth of an applicant in order to properly identify the same and obtain desired relevant information from entities listed above.
J. To federal, state, tribal, or local government agencies charged with the implementation of hazard mitigation measures and the enforcement of hazard-specific provisions of building codes, standards, and ordinances. FEMA will only disclose information for the following purposes:
1. For hazard mitigation planning purposes, to assist federal, state, tribal, or local government agencies in identifying high-risk areas and preparing mitigation plans that target those areas for hazard mitigation projects implemented under federal, state, tribal, or local hazard mitigation programs.
2. For enforcement purposes, to enable federal, state, tribal, or local government agencies, to ensure that owners repair or rebuild structures in conformity with applicable hazard-specific building codes, standards, and ordinances.
K. To the Department of the Treasury, pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. 3325(d) and 7701(c)(1), as amended. An applicant's Social Security Number will be released in connection with a request that the Department of the Treasury provide a disaster assistance payment to an applicant under the IHP.
L. To a state, local, or tribal government agency in connection with billing that state, local, or tribal government for the applicable non-federal cost share under the IHP. Information shared shall only include applicants' names, contact information, and amounts of assistance received.
M. To state, tribal, or local government emergency managers, when an applicant is occupying a FEMA temporary housing unit, for the purposes of preparing, administering, coordinating, and/or monitoring emergency response, public safety, and evacuation plans. FEMA shall only release the applicants' phone numbers, address, and number of household occupants of the housing unit.
N. To the Department of the Treasury, Department of Justice, the United States Attorney's Office, or other third party for further collection action on any delinquent debt when circumstances warrant.
O. To federal, state, tribal, or local law enforcement authorities, or agencies, or other entities authorized to investigate and/or coordinate locating missing children and/or reuniting families.
P. To state, tribal, or local government election agencies/authorities that oversee the voting process within their respective municipalities, for the purpose of ensuring voting rights of individuals who have applied for FEMA assistance, limited to their own respective citizens who are displaced by a Presidentially-declared major disaster or emergency out of their voting jurisdiction.
Q. To certain federal, state, tribal, or local government agencies to update the applicant's current records (e.g., change of address, effective date of change of address) when that agency needs to update contact information (e.g., the Social Security Administration, a State Department of Motor Vehicles, or a State health agency).
R. To other federal, state, local, or tribal government agencies, and voluntary organizations under approved computer matching efforts.
S. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the DHS Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with the DHS General Counsel and FEMA Chief Counsel when there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information or when disclosure is necessary to inform the public or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12). DHS/FEMA may make disclosures from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(f), as amended; or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3), as amended.
Records in this system are stored electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, digital/electronic media.
Records may be retrieved by an individual's name, address, Social Security Number, and case file number.
FEMA safeguards the records in this system in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Records pertaining to disaster assistance will be placed in inactive storage two years after FEMA receives the application and will be destroyed when they are six years and three months old, in accordance with NARA Authority N1–311–86–1, item 4C10a. Records pertaining to temporary housing will be destroyed three years after close of the operation in accordance with NARA Authority N1–311–86–1, item 4C10b. Closeout occurs when the disaster contract is terminated. Records pertaining to the IHP program will retire to the Federal Records Center (FRC) one year after closeout and be destroyed three years after closeout. Records pertaining to individual assistance customer satisfaction assessments are stored in accordance with NARA Authority N1–311–00–1. The customer service assessment forms that have been filled out and returned by disaster assistance applicants are temporary records that are destroyed upon transmission of the final report, per NARA Authority N1–311–00–1, item 1. The statistical and analytical reports resulting from these assessments are temporary records that are retired 3 years after the final report cutoff and destroyed 20 years after the report cutoff, per NARA Authority N1–311–00–1, item 2. The assessment results database are temporary records that are destroyed when no longer needed for analysis purposes, per NARA Authority N1–311–00–1, item 3.
Division Director, Individual Assistance Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.
Individuals applying for IHP assistance may access their information online via the Disaster Assistance Center using the user ID, password, system generated PIN, and authentication that was established during the application process. Applicants may also call a NPSC representative to access their information by providing their registration ID.
In addition, individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the FEMA Disclosure Officer, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. If an individual believes more than one component maintains Privacy Act records concerning him or her, the individual may submit the request to the Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Drive SW., Building 410, STOP–0550, Washington, DC 20528.
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other FEMA system of records your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR Part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records; and
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
FEMA receives information from individuals who apply for disaster assistance through three different media: (1) Electronically via the Internet at
None.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FEMA requests review and approval of this collection of information under the emergency processing procedures. FEMA is requesting that this information collection be approved by April 30, 2013. The approval will authorize FEMA to use the collection through September 30, 2013. FEMA plans to follow this emergency request with a request for a 3-year approval. The request will be processed under OMB's normal clearance procedures. FEMA invites the general public to comment on the proposed collection of information.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 30, 2013.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598–3005, facsimile number (202) 646–3347, or email address
Under the direction of Executive Order 13254 which directs FEMA's Individual and Community Preparedness Division (ICPD) acts under the authority of Executive Order 13254, “Establishing the USA Freedom Corps.” This Executive Order creates a council composed of Federal executive branch leaders, and directs members of that council to perform a range of functions, to include studying and tracking the progress of public service programs. This collection seeks experiential information from survivors of Hurricane Sandy via a telephone survey and a series of focus groups. This collection of information is necessary to ensure effectiveness and value of awareness and education campaigns, disaster messaging and other associated outreach efforts.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee Management; Notice of Open Federal Advisory Committee Teleconference.
The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board) will meet via teleconference on Wednesday, May 15, 2013. The meeting will be open to the public.
The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy will meet on Wednesday, May 15, 2013, from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please note that the meeting may close early if the Board has completed its business.
Members of the public who wish to participate in the teleconference should contact Cindy Wivell as listed below in the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed below in the
•
•
There will be a 6-minute comment period after each agenda item; each speaker will be given no more than 2 minutes to speak. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact Cindy Wivell to register as a speaker.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92–463).
The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States Fire Administrator, of the operation of the Academy and any improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. The Board makes interim advisories to the Administrator of FEMA, through the United States Fire Administrator, whenever there is an indicated urgency to do so in fulfilling its duties. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine whether these programs further the basic missions which are approved by the Administrator of FEMA, examines the physical plant of the Academy to determine the adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the funding levels for Academy programs. The Board submits an annual report through the United States Fire Administrator to the Administrator of FEMA, in writing. The report provides detailed comments and recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.
The Board will review and approve the minutes of the December 5, 2012, teleconference meeting. The Board will discuss deferred maintenance and capital improvements on the National Emergency Training Center (NETC) campus, to include FY 2013 Budget Planning. The Board will receive a status report on U.S. Fire Administration data, research and response support initiatives. The Board
The Board will discuss the Fire and Emergency Services Higher Education (FESHE)/Professional Development Subcommittee activities, including the FESHE committee's realignment, National Professional Development Symposium, and FESHE Recognition Update.
The Board will discuss dates and agenda items for upcoming meetings and the logistics for completing the 2012 BOV NFA annual report.
The public will have an opportunity to comment on these issues prior to deliberation and final action by the Board. After deliberation, the Board will recommend actions to the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy and the Administrator of FEMA.
Office of Strategic Planning and Management, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. HUD is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Comment Due Date: July 1, 2013.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval numbers (2535–0017), (2525–0018), (4040–0004) and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; Telephone (202) 402–4300, (this is not a toll-free number) or email Ms. Pollard at
Dorthera Yorkshire, AJT, Grants Management and Oversight Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 3156, Washington, DC 20410; email:
HUD will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Grant Application Detailed Budget Form (HUD–424–CB).
Grant Application Detailed Budget Worksheet (HUD–424–CBW). OMB Control Number: 2501–0017.
Facsimile Transmittal Form (HUD–96011). OMB Control Number: 2535–0118.
Application for Federal Assistance (SF–424). OMB Control Number: 4040–0004.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
An estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the forms for each grant application is estimated to average 30 minutes per response however, the burden will be assessed against each individual grant program submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act; number of respondents is 33,000 frequency of response is on the occasion of application for benefits.
PL: Public Law 106–107 468 Name of Law: Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999. PL: Public Law 109–282 2590 Name of Law: Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department for funding under the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Section 3 Program Coordination and Implementation for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. This announcement contains the names and addresses of the award recipients selected for funding based on the rating and ranking of all applications and the amount of the awards.
Staci Gilliam, Director, Economic Opportunity Division, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 5236, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone number (202) 402–3468 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), as amended, and the implementing regulation at 24 CFR part 135 ensures that employment, training, and contracting opportunities generated by certain HUD financial assistance shall, to the greatest extent feasible, and consistent with existing Federal, State and local laws and regulations, be directed to low- and very low income persons, particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for housing, and to businesses that provide economic opportunities to low- and very low-income persons.
The Department published the Section 3 Coordination and Implementation Notice of Funding Availability (Section 3 NOFA) on June 7, 2011 announcing the availability of approximately $600,000 out of the Department's FY 2010 appropriation, to be utilized to help agencies that receive covered HUD funding build their capacity to meet the regulatory requirements of Section 3 by providing funds for the salary, fringe benefits, and other expenses associated with hiring one full-time Section 3 Coordinator for one year. Funding availability for discretionary grants included: Approximately 12 qualified applicants to receive awards of $50,000 via a lottery by region. Accordingly, HUD was able to fund at least one application within each of its ten regional offices. This Notice announces grant awards of approximately $600,000 to 12 grantees.
For the FY 2010 NOFA, the Department reviewed, evaluated and scored the applications received based on the criteria in the FY 2010 NOFA. As a result, HUD has funded the applications announced in Appendix A, and in accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is hereby publishing details concerning the recipients of funding awards in Appendix A.
Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Office of Native American Programs Training and Technical Assistance (ONAP T&TA). This announcement contains the consolidated names of this year's award recipients under the NOFA.
Mike Andrews, Director, Office of Native Programs, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202–402–6329. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
This program provides grants to Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages to provide training and technical assistance to Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities on topics pertinent to the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA), the Indian Housing Block Grant program, and the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) program, including the creation of decent housing, suitable living environments, and economic opportunities primarily for persons with low and moderate incomes as defined in 24 CFR 1003.4.
The FY 2012 awards announced in this notice were selected for funding in a competition posted on the Grants.gov Web site on August 30, 2012. Applications were scored and selected for funding based on the selection criteria in that NOFA. The amount allocated in FY 2012 to fund the NOFA was $7.35 million, divided into 3 categories: $2 million for national or regional organizations representing Native American housing interests, $5 million for national or regional organizations representing Native American housing interests and for-profit entities, and $350,000 for national and regional nonprofit organizations, as well as for-profit entities to provide Training & Technical Assistance to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) and sub-recipients of NHHBG.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545), today's
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing intends to make changes to its field and Headquarters operating model. Specifically, the Office of Multifamily Housing will streamline its organizational structure by consolidating 6 Headquarters business offices into 4 offices and consolidating its field structure of 17 Hubs to 5 Hub offices and 5 satellite offices reporting to the Hubs. The other 7 Hubs and 34 program centers will be consolidated into the remaining 10 offices (5 Hubs and 5 satellite offices). The 2 existing property disposition centers will be consolidated into one. Affected offices that will be consolidated include: Hartford CT, Manchester NH, Providence RI, Newark NJ, Buffalo NY, Philadelphia PA, Washington DC (field office only), Baltimore MD, Pittsburgh PA, Richmond VA, Charleston WV, Birmingham AL, Miami FL, Louisville KY, Jackson MS, Greensboro NC, San Juan PR, Columbia SC, Knoxville TN, Nashville TN, Indianapolis IN, Minneapolis MN, Cleveland OH, Milwaukee WI, Little Rock AK, New Orleans LA, Albuquerque NM, Oklahoma City OK, Houston TX, San Antonio TX, Des Moines IA, St. Louis MO, Omaha NE, Phoenix AZ, Los Angeles CA, Honolulu HI, Las Vegas NV, Anchorage AK, and Portland OR. The Seattle WA office will remain open however; Office of Multifamily Housing employees will be transferred into like positions and provide support to the Office of Healthcare Programs. HUD provides this notice in accordance with section 7(p) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act.
Joseph Dubose, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6138, Washington, DC 20410;
In accordance section 7(p) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(p)), a plan for the reorganization of any HUD regional, area, insuring, or other field office may take effect only upon the expiration of 90 days after publication in the
In order to most effectively use its human capital and other resources, the Office of Multifamily Housing (MFH) has been actively working to make fundamental changes to its operating model to improve effectiveness and efficiency and to maximize opportunities to reshape and realign its workforce. Important progress has been made to date, including improving productivity, reducing loan cycle times, increasing employee engagement, and introducing a more risk-based approach to asset management activities. However, several fundamental challenges remain, including a fragmented and unwieldy organizational structure antiquated systems and processes, and role specification which allows for little flexibility in allowing employees to perform various roles while responding to spikes and ebbs in workload.
MFH proposes implementation of 3 categories of changes that will significantly improve the delivery model, help better manage risk and lead to an annual cost savings of an estimated $47M upon complete implementation. These changes include the following:
(1) Streamline the organizational structure;
(2) Introduce risk-based processing across MFH and launch greater workload sharing and balancing;
(3) Create new roles and abolish outdated or under-utilized positions.
The goal is to fully implement these changes by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2016. The reorganization is expected to enhance operational efficiency, as well as improve the service provided to HUD's customers.
Under the proposed structure, Headquarters' business units will be consolidated and reduced from 6 separate offices to 4. In the field, MFH will consolidate 17 Hubs to 5 Hub offices and 5 satellite offices reporting to the Hubs. The other 7 Hubs and 34 program centers will be consolidated into the remaining 10 offices (5 Hub offices and 5 satellite offices). The 2 existing property disposition centers
This new model will help establish better spans of control and establish clear reporting lines in the field. The new structure will allow for more active workload balancing which will enable MFH to provide more consistent servicing to its customers which will ultimately enhance the level of customer service received. Employees in affected offices will have the option to either take a buyout or continue their HUD careers in one of the 10 remaining locations via directed reassignments with relocation entitlements.
To ensure that effective program delivery is maintained for all customers, MFH will introduce risk-based processing and workload sharing and will create new roles and abolish outdated or under-utilized positions. To increase processing consistency and enhance efficiency, workload will be spread virtually across the remaining Hubs based on utilization. This will result in increased efficiency gains in both Asset Management and Asset Development, and help to maintain level work across the remaining hubs. More importantly, reducing the field footprint will increase the consistency of MFH processing across the country and provide a standard platform to introduce ongoing enhancements and efficiencies.
MFH will segment its lenders and loans by key risk factors, spending less time on low-risk applications to ensure sufficient focus can be placed on the more high-risk ones. This will improve processing time and allow MFH to better manage risk within the organization. Additionally, MFH assets will be segmented by troubled and non-troubled, which will provide the ability to designate specific staff to focus on more complex-time-consuming work.
Additionally, MFH currently has defined roles and positions that are outdated and poorly designed in relationship to specification. Roles are overspecialized in the Asset Development arena while they are under specialized in Asset Management. This creates bottlenecks in processing (not enough of a particular role to meet workload demands or processing breakdowns when key players are absent). Overspecialization reduces the ability of employees to perform various functions as workload demand ebbs and peaks. Under specialization oftentimes reduces the ability to effectively manage risk.
Under the new operating model, MFH will create two new models, an Underwriter position to support Asset Development and an Account Executive model for Asset Management. The creation of these models will improve efficiency and help to better manage risk. Review of underwriting applications will shift from a team approach with specialists each having their own defined role, to a single reviewer (underwriter) who will pull in technical expertise only as needed. This will improve efficiency and productivity by reducing processing time as review of applications is passed through several reviewers, and eliminating duplication and re-work. The Account Executive (AE) model will define two levels of AEs. There will be a general AE that will focus on non-troubled applications and a troubled asset specialist who will be assigned more complex, time-consuming applications. Additionally, AEs will be assigned portfolios segmented by region/lender to enhance the level of customer service provided to MFH clients. These changes are not only expected to bring significant benefits to MFH, but will pave the way to HUD's overall vision for transforming rental assistance.
Approximately 90 days following the date of publication of this notice, MFH will begin consolidating offices and reducing its operating footprint, anticipating full implementation of the proposed changes by the end of FY 2016. It is anticipated that overall staffing in MFH will be reduced from 1,547 employees in FY 2012 to 1,173 by the end of FY 2016.
It is difficult to project the number of employees who will take advantage of the buyout, choose to relocate, or resign because these are individual decisions. However, it is estimated that 50–75 percent of the affected employees will take the buyout while 25–50 percent may opt to relocate. MFH is anticipating that limited recruiting will be needed in the remaining 10 offices to supplement the existing workforce and skills needed if staffing is below required levels. The total savings will be about $47M annually once implementation is complete. The savings is directly related to a reduction in salary and benefit costs due to reducing overall MFH staffing from 1,547 in FY 2012 to 1,173 by the end of FY 2016.
a.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
b.
Operating Costs ($0). It is anticipated that the MFH reorganization impact on travel funding will be minimal.
It is anticipated that 25–50 percent of impacted employees (197–395) will be reassigned to an alternate location. Any impact on the local economies in terms of housing, schools, public services, taxes, employment and traffic congestion will be minimal.
As mentioned above, workload will be spread virtually across the remaining Hubs and satellite offices based on utilization. This will result in increased efficiency gains in both Asset Management and Asset Development and help to balance workload across the remaining Hubs and satellite offices. Additionally, developing new, more generalized roles that can perform multiple functions, will allow employees to more effectively support processing and perform multiple functions as workload ebbs and peaks. Program delivery will not be impacted as workload will be shared across remaining locations and employees will become more flexible in performing multiple tasks.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of Final Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Fair Market Rents (FMRs), Update.
Today's notice updates the FY 2013 FMRs for Cheyenne, WY, and Odessa, TX, based on surveys conducted in September 2012 and for Burlington, VT, Mountrail County, ND, Ward County, ND, and Williams County, ND based on surveys conducted in November 2012. The FY 2013 FMRs for these areas reflect the estimated 40th percentile rent levels trended to April 1, 2013.
For technical information on the methodology used to develop FMRs or a listing of all FMRs, please call the HUD USER information line at 800–245–2691 or access the information on the HUD USER Web site:
Questions related to use of FMRs or voucher payment standards should be directed to the respective local HUD program staff. Questions on how to conduct FMR surveys or concerning further methodological explanations may be addressed to Marie L. Lihn or Peter B. Kahn, Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research, telephone 202–708–0590. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. (Other than the HUD USER information line and TDD numbers, telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
In response to comments submitted to the FY 2012 and FY 2013 FMRs, surveys were conducted of the following areas: Cheyenne, WY, and Odessa, TX, Burlington-South Burlington, VT and a three-county group in northwest North Dakota, Mountrail County, Ward County, and Williams County. HUD was evaluating a new survey methodology and could not conduct any surveys in time for the publication of the final FY 2013 FMRs. Cheyenne and Odessa were surveyed in September and Burlington and the three-county group in North Dakota were surveyed in November.
The FMRs appearing in the following table supersede the values found in Schedule B that became effective on October 1, 2012, and were printed in the October 5, 2012.
The FMRs for the six affected areas are revised as follows:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before May 30, 2013.
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358–2280; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358–2104 (telephone); (703) 358–2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to re-import one live Asian elephant (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following families, and species, to enhance their propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following families, to enhance their propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for Bengal tiger (
The applicant requests amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add the Barasingha (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the barasingha (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the barasingha (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the barasingha (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests renewal of their permit to authorize the import of wild live specimens, viable and non-viable eggs, biological samples and salvaged materials of California condors (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to prepare a programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) to evaluate the effects of the cultivation and use of genetically modified crops (GMCs) on lands that are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in the Southeast Region (Refuge System lands). The Service's Southeast Region includes: Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and the Caribbean. We provide this notice to advise other Federal and State agencies, Native American tribes, non-governmental organizations, and the public of our intention as well as to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to consider during the PEA planning process.
These actions are part of our effort to comply with the general provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA); NEPA regulations; other appropriate Federal
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by July 29, 2013.
A private consultant, Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. (EMPSi), will support the Internet Web site associated with the PEA and collect and organize comments.
You may send comments, questions, and requests for information by one of the following methods:
Mr. Richard Warner, NEPA Coordinator, at 404–679–7110 (telephone).
With this notice, we initiate the process for developing a PEA on the cultivation and use of genetically modified crops (GMCs) on our Refuge System lands. Our PEA will concentrate on the refuges in our Region that have used farming in the recent past and are likely to do so in the foreseeable future. The overall analysis in the PEA is intended, however, to apply to the entire Southeast Region.
The specific GMCs that will be analyzed in our PEA are varieties of corn and soybean that could be used to provide a sufficient amount of food for migratory waterfowl and satisfy the conservation goals of our refuges. The proposed use of any other GMCs will require a separate NEPA analysis on a case-by-case basis.
As part of a settlement in
At this juncture, we have determined that a PEA is appropriate to sufficiently analyze the environmental impacts of the cultivation and use of GMCs on our Refuge System lands. If we determine during preparation of the PEA that it is not appropriate for our NEPA analysis or if we are unable to make a finding of no significant impact at the conclusion of our analysis via the PEA, we will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with NEPA.
Refuge farming in the Southeast Region primarily occurs through cooperative farming agreements that are entered into by a refuge manager and a farmer. Via the agreement, the farmer is authorized to grow crops on a designated number of acres on the refuge. In return, the farmer agrees to harvest an agreed upon percentage share of the crop and to leave the remaining crop in the fields as a food source for migrating birds.
The only GMCs that have been cultivated and used on our Refuge System lands are those that have been evaluated and deregulated by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as described in 7 CFR 340.6. Each of these GMCs was subjected to extensive scientific evaluation and regulatory processes before being granted non-regulated status, as described at
The authority for approving GMCs on refuge lands, nationwide, was delegated by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to the Regional Chiefs of the National Wildlife Refuge System in April 2007. This policy may be found at
We will conduct six public scoping meetings to solicit input on the issues, concerns, and alternatives for the cultivation and use of GMCs on refuges in the Region. Meetings will be conducted at the following locations: Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina); Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge (Alabama); Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge (Tennessee); Vicksburg, Mississippi; and Alexandria, Louisiana. The addresses, dates, and times of meetings will be announced through local and regional media.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, suggestion or correspondence, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may 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.
This notice is published under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of an extension of a currently approved information collection (1028–0059).
We (the USGS) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection request (ICR) described below. This collection consists of 1 form. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we
To ensure that your comments on this IC are considered, we must receive them on or before July 1, 2013.
Please submit a copy of your comments to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703–648–7195 (fax); or
Lori E. Apodaca at 703–648–7724 (telephone);
The collection of this information is required by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and will, upon request, provide the CTBT Technical Secretariat with geographic locations of sites where chemical explosions greater than 300 tons TNT-equivalent have occurred.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 (creating the San Pedro National Conservation Area), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Tucson Field Office, Tucson, Arizona, intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) with an associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues. The RMP will replace the existing Safford RMP decisions for the BLM land within the planning area.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the RMP with associated EIS. Scoping will begin when the notice is published and extend for at least 90 days. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings have not yet been determined. All public meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, newspapers, and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the SPRNCA RMP/EIS by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Tucson Field Office.
Amy Markstein, Assistant Planner, telephone 520–258–7231; address 3201 East Universal Way, Tucson, AZ 85756; email
This document provides notice that the BLM Tucson Field Office, Tucson, Arizona, intends to prepare an RMP with an associated EIS for the SPRNCA, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria. The planning effort is focused on the SPRNCA, which encompasses 56,431 acres of public land located within
The planning effort is needed to provide direction for the long-range management and protection of the SPRNCA's resources, including aquatic; wildlife; archaeological; paleontological; scientific; cultural; educational; and recreational resources and values, as stated in Public Law 100–696 and codified at 16 U.S.C. 460xx.
The purpose of the RMP is to identify the current management situation, desired future conditions to be maintained or achieved, and management actions necessary to achieve those objectives for the aforementioned resources.
The issues include:
• The geographic extent of the planning area (the planning area boundary);
• Desired future conditions for water quantity;
• Desired future conditions for riparian and upland plant communities;
• Management of riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River;
• SPRNCA's designation as a Globally Important Bird Area;
• Determining which areas should be open and closed to grazing;
• Use restrictions for resource protection; and
• Management of resources near the urban interface.
Preliminary planning criteria include:
• The RMP will comply with FLPMA, NEPA, and all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
• Program specific guidance for decisions at the land use planning level. The process will follow the BLM's policies in Appendix C of the Land Use Planning Handbook, H–1610–1.
• The RMP will recognize all valid existing rights.
• The RMP will meet the requirements of the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–696) to conserve, protect, and enhance the riparian area and the aquatic, wildlife, archaeological, paleontological, scientific, cultural, educational, and recreational resources of the conservation area.
• The RMP will not address any National Conservation Area boundary adjustments or proposals to change Public Law 100–696.
• The BLM will conduct government to government consultation with affiliated Native American tribes in accordance with Executive Order 13175.
• The planning process will include the consideration of any impacts on Native American Trust assets.
• The RMP decisions will comply with the Endangered Species Act (and be consistent with BLM Manual 6840 Special Status Species) and follow interagency agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Section 7 Consultation and species recovery process.
• Coordination with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office will be conducted throughout the planning process.
• The RMP will recognize Arizona Game and Fish Department's authority to manage wildlife, including hunting and fishing, within the planning area pursuant to the master memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Arizona Game and Fish Commission establishing coordination and cooperation between agencies.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
The BLM will use information about historic and cultural resources within the planning area in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Rangeland management, outdoor recreation, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife, fisheries, lands and realty, hydrology, sociology, and economics.
40 CFR 1501.7, 43 CFR 1610.2
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Intent.
As directed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Ruby Pipeline Project to respond to the court's direction and provide a revised cumulative-effects analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Mark Mackiewicz, Project Manager, at 435–636–3616, Bureau of Land Management Price Field Office, 125 South 600 West, Price, Utah 84501; email
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is responsible for authorizing construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines. The FERC issues Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) for natural gas pipelines under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA), as amended, and authorizes construction and siting of facilities for the import or export of natural gas under Section 3 of the NGA. The FERC also authorizes construction and operation of natural gas pipelines per the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3341–3348).
Accordingly, the FERC served as the Lead Agency for Ruby Pipeline, LLC.'s (Ruby) application for the Ruby Pipeline Project. The FERC used the Final EIS it prepared according to the NEPA (January 28, 2010) to issue its Certificate for the Ruby Pipeline Project on April 5, 2010. The Certificate authorized Ruby to construct an approximately 678 mile, 42-inch interstate natural gas pipeline that crosses 368 miles of Federal land beginning near Opal, Wyoming, extending through northern Utah and northern Nevada, and terminating near Malin, Oregon.
The BLM has primary responsibility for issuing right-of-way (ROW) grants and temporary use permits for natural gas pipelines across most Federal lands pursuant to Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended (30 U.S.C. 185
The project has been constructed and is currently in operation. However, the BLM Ruby Pipeline Project ROD was challenged, and on January 4, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Ruby Pipeline Final EIS does not provide sufficient quantified or detailed data about the cumulative loss of sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat. The court remanded the 2010 ROD to the BLM to undertake a revised cumulative effects analysis (
The BLM is preparing a Draft Supplemental EIS to correct the deficiencies identified by the court. The Draft Supplemental EIS will include supplemental information about the original and present condition of the sagebrush steppe habitat and analyze the cumulative impacts of the project based on the supplemental information.
The BLM will follow the process generally described in 40 CFR 1502.9, which requires preparation of a draft and final Supplemental EIS with the exception of a formal scoping period. A 45-day public comment period will be provided and will be announced in a Notice of Availability for the Draft Supplemental EIS.
If appropriate, the BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA commenting process to satisfy the public involvement process for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3) and Secretarial Order 3317. Native American tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with policy, and tribal concerns will be given due consideration, including impacts on Indian trust assets. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4) formal scoping will not be conducted.
Federal, State, and local agencies with expertise regarding the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem or ROW concurrence authority may request cooperating agency status.
40 CFR 1502.9, 43 CFR part 2880.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Realty Action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has examined and found suitable for classification and conveyance to Jackson County, under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP), as amended, and the Taylor Grazing Act, approximately 127.63 acres of public land in Jackson County, Colorado. The Jackson County Commissioners propose to use the land for a public shooting range.
Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the proposed classification for conveyance until June 14, 2013.
Please submit your written comments to the Field Manager, BLM Kremmling Field Office, P.O. Box 68, Kremmling, CO 80459. Comments received in electronic form such as email or facsimile will not be considered.
Annie Sperandio, Realty Specialist, by telephone 970–724–3062, or at the address above. Persons who use a
In accordance with Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act, (43 U.S.C. 315(f)) and Executive Order No. 6910, the following described public land in Jackson County, Colorado, has been examined and found suitable for classification and conveyance under the provisions of the R&PP Act, as amended, (43 U.S.C. 869
The area described contains 127.63 acres in Jackson County, Colorado. A cadastral dependent resurvey was approved and accepted on July 15, 2011.
In accordance with the R&PP Act, the Jackson County Commissioners filed an R&PP application to develop the above-described land as a public shooting range. The BLM conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on December 10, 2012. No hazardous substances, petroleum products, or recognized environmental conditions were identified on the parcel; no further inquiry is needed to assess Recognized Environmental Conditions. The land is not needed for any Federal purpose. The classification is consistent with the BLM Kremmling Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan dated December 19, 1984, and is in the public interest. The BLM has prepared an environmental assessment analyzing the Jackson County application and the proposed development and management plans.
Conveyance of the land would complement Jackson County's plans to have a public shooting range for its citizens and out-of-county, out-of-state visitors who come seasonally to North Park to hunt water fowl, upland small game and birds, or big game. A conveyance will be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act, applicable regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, and the following reservations to the United States:
1. A reservation to the United States for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States pursuant to the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
2. All minerals, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, along with all necessary access rights and exit rights.
A conveyance will be subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. All valid existing rights documented on the official public land records at the time of patent issuance.
2. A right-of-way across the above-described lands for a road granted to the BLM, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way COC–57865 pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761).
3. Any other valid rights-of-way that may exist at the time of conveyance.
4. A limited reversionary provision that states title shall revert to the United States upon a finding, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that the patentee has not substantially developed the land in accordance with the approved plan of development 5 years after the date of patent. No portion of the land shall under any circumstances revert to the United States if any such portion had been used for solid waste disposal or for any other purpose that may result in disposal, placement, or release of any hazardous substances.
5. An indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the land.
6. Pursuant to the requirements established by Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1988 (100 Stat. 1670), a notice that states the land has been examined and found to have in the past received potentially hazardous materials in the form of lead from target shooting; however, the material has been removed and a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed indicates that no hazardous substances remain on the subject property.
Upon publication of this notice in the
Classification Comments: Interested persons may submit comments on the application of the lands as suitable for development/management as a public shooting range. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or whether the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.
Application Comments: Interested persons may also submit comments on the application, including the notification of the BLM of any encumbrances or other claim relating to the parcel, and regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development; whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision to convey the land under the R&PP Act; or any other factors not directly related to the suitability of the land for a public shooting range.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or any 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.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Colorado State Director. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become effective on July 1, 2013.
The land will not be available for conveyance until after the classification becomes effective.
43 CFR 2741.5.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
This notice terminates the existing classifications in their entirety
The effective date is April 30, 2013.
Mark Ennes, Assistant Field Manager, Non-Renewable Resources, Tonopah Field Office, 1553 South Main, P.O. Box 911, Tonopah, NV; phone: 775–482–7800; or email:
On November 19, 1987, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a notice in the
Pursuant to 43 CFR 2091.2–2 and 2461.5(c)(2), and upon publication of this notice in the
The area described contains 20 acres in Nye County, Nevada.
In the
Pursuant to 43 CFR 2091.2–2 and 2461.5(c)(2), and upon publication of this notice in the
The area described contains 10 acres in Nye County, Nevada.
The two areas described aggregate 30 acres in Nye County, Nevada.
In the
Pursuant to 43 CFR 2091.2–2 and 2461.5(c)(2), and upon publication of this notice in the
The area described contains 40 acres in Esmeralda County, Nevada.
At 8:30 a.m., on April 30, 2013, the 70 acres of public lands described above will be opened to operation of the public land laws generally, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, and the requirements of applicable law. All valid existing applications received at or prior to 8:30 a.m. on April 30, 2013, will be considered as simultaneously filed at that time. Those received thereafter will be considered in the order of filing.
At 8:30 a.m. on April 30, 2013, the 70 acres of public lands described above will be opened to location and entry under the United States mining laws. Appropriation under the general mining laws prior to the date and time of restoration is unauthorized. Any such attempted appropriation, including attempted adverse possession under 30 U.S.C. Sec. 38, shall vest no rights against the United States. Acts required to establish a location and to initiate a right of possession are governed by State law where not in conflict with Federal law. The BLM will not intervene in disputes between rival locators over possessory rights since Congress has provided for such determination in local courts.
43 CFR 2091.2–2 and 43 CFR 2461.5(c)(2).
Institution of antidumping duty investigations and scheduling of preliminary phase investigations.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping investigations No. 731–TA–1207–1209 (Preliminary) under section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from prestressed concrete steel rail tie wire from China, Mexico, and Thailand, provided for in subheading 7217.10.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping investigations in 45 days, or in this case by June 7, 2013. The Commission's views are due within five business days thereafter, or by June 14, 2013.
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
Christopher J. Cassise (202–708–5408), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on April 5, 2012, applicable to workers of Siemens Medical Solutions, USA, Inc., Oncology Care Systems (Radiation Oncology), including on-site leased workers from Source Right Solutions, Concord, California. The workers are engaged in activities related to the supply of medical engineering services and other related services. The notice was published in the
At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information from the company shows that as of February 2013, Siemens Medical Solutions, USA, Inc., Oncology Care Systems (Radiation Oncology), including on-site leased workers from Source Right Solutions, originally located at 4040 Nelson Avenue, Concord, California is now located at 757A Arnold Drive, Martinez, California.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in the supply of medical engineering services and other related services to Erlangen, Germany.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to show that Siemens Medical Solutions, USA, Inc., Oncology Care Systems (Radiation Oncology), including on-site leased workers from Source Right Solutions originally located in Concord, California is now located in Martinez, California.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–81,292 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers from Siemens Medical Solutions, USA, Inc., Oncology Care Systems (Radiation Oncology), including on-site leased workers from Source Right Solutions, Concord, California, now located in Martinez, California, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 1, 2011, through April 5, 2014, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA–W) number issued during the period of
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) the increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) the shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) the acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1), or (c)(1) (employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than May 10, 2013.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than May 10, 2013.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
All comments must be postmarked or received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on July 1, 2013.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice must be clearly identified with “OMB 1219–0001” and sent to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Comments may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Deputy Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Continuous Personal Dust Monitors (CPDMs) determine the concentration of respirable dust in coal mines. CPDMs must be designed and constructed for coal miners to wear and operate without impeding their ability to perform their work safely and effectively, and must be durable to perform reliably in normal working conditions of coal mines. Requirements for MSHA and NIOSH approval of the manufacture of CPDMs are defined in 30 CFR part 74. Paperwork requirements imposed on applicants are related to the application process and CPDM testing procedures.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the information collection related to Coal Mine Dust Sampling Devices. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Address the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses), to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond.
OMB clearance requests are available on MSHA's Web site at
The public also may examine publicly available documents, including the public comment version of the supporting statement, at MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, VA 22209–3939.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
The information obtained from applicants will be used to determine compliance with 30 CFR part 74.
MSHA has updated the number of respondents and responses, as well as the total burden hours and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
MSHA does not intend to publish the results from this information collection and is not seeking approval to either display or not display the expiration date for the OMB approval of this information collection.
There are no certification exceptions identified with this information collection and the collection of this information does not employ statistical methods.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as a.m.ended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
• Directorate Update: Dr. Myron Gutmann.
• Report on BCS Committee of Visitors (COV).
• Report from SBE AC—Subcommittee on Youth Violence.
• Report from SBE AC—Subcommittee on Advancing SBE Survey Research.
• Discussion with NSF Leadership.
• Report from SBE AC—Subcommittee on the Future of the Science and Learning.
• Report from NSF Ad-hoc Advisory Committee on the CAREER Program.
• NSF Strategic Plan.
• Agenda for Future Meeting Dates, Assignments, Concluding Remarks.
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 14, 2013.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The two-item meeting is open to the public.
Telephone: (202) 314–6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived Webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing, at (202) 314–6403 or by email at
Peter Knudson, at (202) 314–6100 or by email at
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from April 4, 2013 to April 17, 2013. The last biweekly notice was published on April 16, 2013 (78 FR 22563).
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0074 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0074 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly-available, by the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2013–0074 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Section 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon which the filing is based is materially different from information previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are to the surveillance requirements only. The ability of the TS surveillance to ensure that the batteries have the capacity to perform their specified safety functions with regard to accident mitigation or meeting their licensing design basis requirements is not reduced/diminished.
There are no design changes associated with this TS amendment. The DC power system/batteries will retain adequate independency, redundancy, capacity and testability to permit the functioning required of the engineered safety features. The batteries will each continue to independently
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves only surveillance test acceptance criteria. The ability of the TS surveillance to ensure that the batteries have the capacity to perform their specified safety functions with regard to accident mitigation or meeting their licensing design basis requirements is not reduced/diminished.
There are no proposed design changes, nor are there any changes in the method by which any safety related plant structure, system, or component (SSC) performs its specified safety function. The proposed change will not affect the normal method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. Equipment performance necessary to fulfill safety analysis missions will be unaffected. The proposed change will not alter any assumptions required to meet the safety analysis acceptance criteria. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced because of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety related system because of this amendment.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not reduce the ability of the TS surveillance requirements to ensure that the station batteries have adequate capacity to perform their engineered safety features functions with regard to accident mitigation and meeting their licensing design basis requirements. The lower battery inter-cell connection resistance values are more restrictive, consistent with design basis calculations and appropriately identified in maintenance procedures. The proposed changes do not physically alter safety related systems. There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. The applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
These changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–500, Revision 2, “DC Electrical Rewrite—Update to TSTF–360.” The availability of this TS improvement was announced in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes restructure the Technical Specifications (TS) for the direct current (DC) electrical power system and are consistent with TSTF–500, Revision 2. The proposed changes modify TS Actions relating to battery and battery charger operability requirements. The DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers, is not an initiator of any accident sequence analyzed in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR). Rather, the DC electrical power system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed changes to restructure TS and change surveillances for batteries and chargers to incorporate the applicable updates included in TSTF–500, Revision 2, will maintain the same level of equipment performance required for mitigating accidents assumed in the SAR. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS would ensure that the DC electrical power system is capable of performing its specified safety function as described in the SAR. Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by the DC electrical power system will continue to provide the protection assumed by the analysis. A new licensee-controlled Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program will ensure appropriate monitoring and maintenance that is consistent with industry standards. In addition, the DC electrical power system is within the scope of 10 CFR 50.65, “Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants,” which will ensure the control of maintenance activities associated with the DC electrical power system.
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, and operating procedures as described in the SAR will not be affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing these changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the DC electrical power system. The DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the SAR. Rather, the DC electrical power system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed changes to restructure the TS and change surveillances for batteries and chargers to incorporate the applicable updates included in TSTF–500, Revision 2, will maintain the same level of equipment performance required for mitigating accidents assumed in the SAR. Administrative and mechanical controls are in place to ensure the design and operation of the DC systems continues to meet the plant design basis described in the SAR.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The equipment margins will be
TS changes made in accordance with TSTF–500, Revision 2, maintain the same level of equipment performance stated in the SAR and the current TSs.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
These changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–500, Revision 2, “DC Electrical Rewrite—Update to TSTF–360.” The availability of this TS improvement was announced in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes restructure the Technical Specifications (TS) for the direct current (DC) electrical power system and are consistent with TSTF–500, Revision 2. The proposed changes modify TS Actions relating to battery and battery charger operability. The DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers, is not an initiator of any accident sequence analyzed in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR). Rather, the DC electrical power system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed changes to restructure TS and change surveillances for batteries and chargers to incorporate the applicable updates included in TSTF–500, Revision 2, will maintain the same level of equipment performance required for mitigating accidents assumed in the SAR. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS would ensure that the DC electrical power system is capable of performing its specified safety function as described in the SAR. Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by the DC electrical power system will continue to provide the protection assumed by the analysis. A new licensee-controlled Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program will ensure appropriate monitoring and maintenance that is consistent with industry standards. In addition, the DC electrical power system is within the scope of 10 CFR 50.65, “Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants,” which will ensure the control of maintenance activities associated with the DC electrical power system.
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, and operating procedures as described in the SAR will not be affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing these changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the DC electrical power system. The DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the SAR. Rather, the DC electrical power system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed changes to restructure the TS and change surveillances for batteries and chargers to incorporate the applicable updates included in TSTF–500, Revision 2, will maintain the same level of equipment performance required for mitigating accidents assumed in the SAR. Administrative and mechanical controls are in place to ensure the design and operation of the DC systems continues to meet the plant design basis described in the SAR.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The equipment margins will be maintained in accordance with the plant-specific design bases as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not adversely affect operation of plant equipment. These changes will not result in a change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated. Sufficient DC capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment is ensured. The changes associated with the new Battery Maintenance and Monitoring Program will ensure that the station batteries are maintained in a highly reliable manner. The equipment fed by the DC electrical sources will continue to provide adequate power to safety-related loads in accordance with analysis assumptions.
TS changes made in accordance with TSTF–500, Revision 2, maintain the same level of equipment performance stated in the SAR and the current TSs.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment involves a change of the corporate name from Florida Power Corporation to Duke Energy Florida, Inc. The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the technical qualifications of the licensee or the plant's design, configuration, or operation. All Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits specified in the CR–3 Improved Technical Specifications remain unchanged. Also, the Physical Security Plan and related plans, the Operator Training and Requalification Program, the Quality Assurance Program, and the Emergency Plan will not be materially changed by the proposed name change. The corporate name change amendment will not affect the executive oversight provided by the Chief Nuclear Officer and his staff.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the plant's design, configuration, or operation. The current plant design, design bases, and plant safety analysis will remain the same.
The Limiting Conditions for Operations, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits specified in the CR–3 Improved Technical Specifications are not affected by the proposed corporate name change. As such, the plant conditions for which the design basis accident analysis was performed remain valid.
The proposed amendment does not introduce a new mode of plant operation or new accident precursors, does not involve any physical alterations to plant configuration, or make changes to system set points that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not affect either the way in which the plant structures, systems, and components perform their safety function or its design and licensing bases.
Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits specified in the Technical Specifications. Because there is no change to the physical design of the plant, there is no change to any of these margins.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1.
The proposed change adds an additional permissive before high head safety injection is initiated to assist the operators in mitigating the consequences of an inadvertent initiation of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). This change in the ECCS actuation circuitry does not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated because:
• There is no effect on any of the systems, structures, or components that are used for normal operation of the plant,
• There is no effect on any of the fission product barriers,
• This change will not affect the normal operating procedures,
The revised circuitry will delay the initiation of high head SI until reactor coolant pressure is below the CLIP [cold leg injection permissive] setpoint; however, the proposed change does not significantly increase the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change does not alter ECCS flow. The delayed opening of the high head SI valves has been evaluated for the effect on the consequences of the following:
• Mass and energy release for steam line break accidents,
• Steam line break—UFSAR section 15.1.5 (specifically hot zero-power conditions)
• Feedwater line break—UFSAR section 15.2.8
• Inadvertent operation of emergency core cooling system during power operation—UFSAR section 15.5.1
• Chemical and volume control system malfunction that increases reactor coolant inventory—UFSAR section 15.5.2
For all of the above evaluated accidents, the analysis results continue to meet all the safety limits. For the inadvertent initiation of ECCS event, the proposed change assists the operators in mitigating the event by significantly extending the time for the pressurizer to fill. Additional evaluations of small break LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident], best estimate large break LOCA, long term cooling, LOCA forces, cold overpressure mitigation/low temperature over pressure protection, steam generator tube rupture, and LOCA mass and energy release were performed and it was concluded that they were not affected by this change.
In addition evaluations were performed for the centrifugal charging pumps and reactor vessel internals; and for the NSSS [nuclear steam supply system] design transients to determine if the change in the timing of the high head injection would have an effect and it was concluded that these components and transients are not adversely affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2.
The proposed change adds new components to the process protection racks and solid state protection system similar to the components and configurations that are already installed. The sequence of operation of equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an accident is changed; however, it does not add any different types of equipment. The proposed change is a change to the protection circuitry for the plant and not to the system or equipment used for normal operation of the plant. It does not alter any fluid flow paths or fission product barriers and does not change the method of control of any plant systems used for normal operations. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of the ECCS to perform its specified function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed acceptance limits. The evaluation of the centrifugal charging pumps, reactor internals, control systems and NSSS design transients confirmed that new failure modes were not created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
The proposed change does involve a change in the timing of the mitigation of inadvertent ECCS actuation and steam line break.
This change provides additional time for mitigating the inadvertent operation of emergency core cooling system during power operation event prior to filling the pressurizer water solid, by preventing the injection of high head safety injection when it is not required.
This change delays the injection of high head safety injection on a steam line break. The delay has no effect on the steamline break mass and energy releases and the limiting analysis of record hot zero power steam line break as discussed below.
An evaluation was performed to address the impact of the CLIP modification on the steamline break (SLB) mass and energy release stretch power uprate (SPU) analyses, the current analysis of record. For the steamline break mass and energy analyses, the CLIP modification has the potential to delay initiation of ECCS injection by inhibiting auto-open of the cold leg injection valves until both an S-signal and a CLIP signal are present. There are three parts to the evaluation: Part 1 addresses the licensing-basis cases for steamline break mass and energy release inside containment, part 2 addresses the licensing-basis cases for steamline break mass and energy release outside containment, and part 3 addresses steamline break s smaller than those analyzed for the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) for which there may be an S-signal but no signal associated with the CLIP.
In the SPU steamline break mass and energy release analysis for double-ended ruptures, the first signal is low steam pressure for all cases. Using the SPU analysis output results, the assumed time of SI flow delivery is compared to the time when SI flow delivery with CLIP occurs. The results are that for all of the double-ended ruptures, SI flow delivery with CLIP is not reached until after the time assumed for SI flow delivery in the SPU analysis. Although an increase in safety injection delay is considered nonconservative, a sensitivity calculation was specifically performed to evaluate the impact of safety injection and the results show that mass and energy releases are not impacted by the increased delay time for safety injection. These results were expected as the ECCS injection occurs at relatively low flow rates due to high reactor coolant system pressure, and boron injection occurs long after the return to power has been mitigated by increasing reactor coolant system temperature. Any delay in initiation of ECCS injection has a negligible effect on core cooling throughout the event and core reactivity during the initial return to power.
In the SPU steamline break mass and energy release analysis for split breaks, the first signal is the time of the first high containment pressure setpoint. Using the SPU analysis output results, the assumed time of SI flow delivery is compared to the time when SI flow delivery with CLIP occurs. The results are that for all of the split breaks, SI flow delivery with CLIP is not reached until after the time assumed for SI flow delivery in the SPU analysis. Although an increase in safety injection delay is considered non-conservative, a sensitivity calculation was specifically performed to evaluate the impact of safety injection and the results show that mass and energy releases are not impacted by the increased delay time for Safety Injection. These results were expected as the ECCS injection occurs at relatively low flow rates due to high reactor coolant system pressure, and boron injection occurs long after the return to power has been mitigated by increasing reactor coolant system temperature. Any delay in initiation of ECCS injection has a negligible effect on core cooling throughout the event and core reactivity during the initial return to power.
The hot zero-power steamline break event remains bounding for operation at the current uprate conditions. The CLIP modification does not impact the limiting case for hot zero-power steamline break results because the cold leg injection valves will be fully open before the as-modeled high head safety injection flow starts. In addition, sensitivity studies confirm that the maximum break size remains bounding for the hot zero-power steamline break event with the CLIP modification.
The above evaluation shows that the installation of a CLIP would not impact the Seabrook steamline break mass and energy release licensing basis or the hot zero-power steam line break results.
The feedline break (FLB) has been reanalyzed with the additional conservatism, with respect to the SPU FLB analysis, of assuming no safety injection flow. The results of the analysis show that all the safety limits continue to be met even with the additional conservatism of no safety injection assumed. The assumption that operator action is required to mitigate the consequences of a chemical and volume control malfunction is not changed by this modification. Before CLIP, the event was bounded by the inadvertent ECCS actuation event and its associated operator action. With CLIP, the event requires operator action to terminate charging and seal injection flows. As discussed above, the consequences of the other accidents evaluated remain bounded by the analyses of record. The results of analyses and evaluations supporting the proposed change demonstrate acceptance criteria continue to be met.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is one of the design basis accidents that is analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is not increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The proposed change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed those assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Steam Generator Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the physical condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in the margin of safety compared to the current requirements.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The proposed amendment would modify the North Anna Power Station current licensing basis by increasing the time that a single rod bank may be permitted to be outside of sequence and overlap limits. The new allowance only applies to minor sequence and overlap limit differences. The proposed change will result in a small increase in the probability that, at any given time, a control bank will be inserted outside of sequence and overlap limits. However, the probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not affected, since the existing TS already permit a similar deviation with respect to insertion limit. Only the allowed duration of the sequence and overlap limits' exceedance is being changed.
The allowed misalignment is not a malfunction of equipment important to safety; therefore, the probability of such a malfunction is not increased. A single rod bank's position within 18 steps of its sequence and overlap limits does not significantly increase the probability of a malfunction of a component important to safety. This change does not impact the requirement that the rod bank shall be operable (i.e., trippable); as such, it remains able to fulfill its safety function. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
Therefore, neither the probability of occurrence nor the consequences of an accident previously evaluated is significantly increased.
The proposed amendment does not create any new allowances for operating the plant. Only the duration of an existing allowance is being lengthened, with additional restrictions being applied during the extended allowance. No physical changes are being made to any portion of the plant, so no new accident causal mechanisms are being introduced. The proposed change does not result in any new mechanisms that could initiate damage to the reactor or its principal safety barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, or primary containment).
Therefore, the possibility for a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is not created.
The proposed amendment does not affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that demonstrate the integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, or containment during accident conditions. Operation within the proposed limits will not cause unacceptable core radial peaking factors that could result in exceeding departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) limits. Operation within the sequence and overlap limit differences will not result in shutdown margins lower than assumed in the accident analyses. Control and Shutdown rods will remain fully operable (i.e., trippable) during the duration of the proposed extended allowance.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible online through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2013.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2013.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 15, 2013.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 17, 2013.
The December 3, 2012, supplement did not increase the scope of the application and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2013.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 4, 2013.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 15, 2013.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will convene a teleconference meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on June 18, 2013, to discuss the committee's analysis of reported medical events involving yttrium-90 microspheres. Meeting information, including a copy of the agenda and handouts, will be available at
The teleconference meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 18, 2013, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
Dr. Milton Guiberteau, ACMUI Vice Chairman, will preside over the meeting in the ACMUI Chairman's, absence. Dr. Guiberteau will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting:
1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit an electronic copy to Ms. Holiday at the contact information listed above. All submittals must be received by June 13, 2013, three business days prior to the meeting, and must pertain to the topic on the agenda for the meeting.
2. Questions and comments from members of the public will be permitted during the meetings, at the discretion of the acting Chairman.
3. The transcript and meeting summary will be available at (
The meetings will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in Title 10,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC–2013–0001].
Weeks of April 29, May 6, 13, 20, 27, June 3, 2013.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 29, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 6, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 13, 2013.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 3, 2013.
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301–415–1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, 301–415–1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301–287–0727, or by email at
This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or send an email to
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
In accordance with Executive Order 12862, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) conducts a number of customer surveys designed to determine the kinds and quality of services our beneficiaries, claimants, employers and members of the public want and expect, as well as their satisfaction with existing RRB services. The information collected is used by RRB management to monitor customer satisfaction by determining to what extent services are satisfactory and where and to what extent services can be improved. The surveys are limited to data collections that solicit strictly voluntary opinions, and do not collect information which is required or regulated. The information collection, which was first approved by the OMB in 1997, provides the RRB with a
The average burden per response for customer satisfaction activities is estimated to range from 2 minutes for a Web site questionnaire to 2 hours for participation in a focus group. The RRB estimates an annual burden of 1,750 annual responses totaling 735 hours for the generic customer survey clearance.
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Charles Mierzwa, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611–2092 or
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is “Rule 204A–1 (17 CFR 275.204A–1) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940” (15 U.S.C. 80b–1
The purposes of the information collection requirements are to: (i) Ensure that advisers maintain codes of ethics applicable to their supervised persons; (ii) provide advisers with information about the personal securities transactions of their access persons for purposes of monitoring such transactions; (iii) provide advisory clients with information with which to evaluate advisers' codes of ethics; and (iv) assist the Commission's examination staff in assessing the adequacy of advisers' codes of ethics and assessing personal trading activity by advisers' supervised persons.
The respondents to this information collection are investment advisers registered with the Commission. The Commission has estimated that compliance with rule 204A–1 imposes a burden of approximately 118 hours per adviser annually for an estimated total annual burden of 1,255,342 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form S–8 (17 CFR 239.16b) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 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 the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17e–1 (17 CFR 270.17e–1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–1
Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that approximately 775 fund portfolios enter into subadvisory agreements each year.
Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that approximately 1,768 funds use at least one affiliated broker. Based on conversations with fund representatives, the staff estimates approximately 40 percent of transactions that occur under rule 17e–1 would be exempt from its recordkeeping and review requirements. This would leave approximately 1,061 funds
Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under rule 17e–1 is mandatory. The information provided under rule 17e–1 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rules 7a–15 through 7a–37 (17 CFR 260.7a–15—260.7a–37) under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 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 the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation S (17 CFR 230.901 through 230.905) sets forth rules governing offers and sales of securities made outside the United States without registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this 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 the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Several sections of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act” or “Investment Company Act”)
Rule 0–2 under the Investment Company Act,
Applicants for orders can include registered investment companies, affiliated persons of registered investment companies, and issuers seeking to avoid investment company status, among other entities. Commission staff estimates that it receives approximately 110 applications per year under the Act. Although each application typically is submitted on behalf of multiple entities, the entities in the vast majority of cases are related companies and are treated as a single respondent for purposes of this analysis.
The time to prepare an application depends on the complexity and/or novelty of the issues covered by the application. We estimate that the Commission receives 15 of the most time-consuming applications annually, 75 applications of medium difficulty, and 20 of the least difficult applications. Based on conversations with applicants, we estimate that in-house counsel would spend from ten to fifty hours helping to draft and review an application. We estimate a total annual hour burden to all respondents of 3,200 hours [(50 hours × 15 applications) + (30 hours × 75 applications) + (10 hours × 20 applications)].
Much of the work of preparing an application is performed by outside counsel. The cost outside counsel charges applicants depends on the complexity of the issues covered by the application and the time required for preparation. Based on conversations with attorneys who serve as outside counsel, the cost ranges from approximately $10,000 for preparing a well-precedented, routine application to approximately $150,000 to prepare a complex and/or novel application. This distribution gives a total estimated annual cost burden to applicants of filing all applications of $8,450,000 [(15 × $150,000) + (75 × $80,000) + (20 × $10,000)].
We request written comment on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation A (17 CFR 230.251 through 230.263) provides an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Written 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ is proposing a rule change to eliminate the free period for the Limit Up/Limit Down Band Lookup add-on service to TradeInfo under Rule 7015(f). The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed deletions are in brackets.
The following charges are assessed by Nasdaq for connectivity to systems operated by NASDAQ, including the Nasdaq Market Center, the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility, and FINRA's OTCBB Service. The following fees are not applicable to the NASDAQ Options Market LLC. For related options fees for Access Services refer to Chapter XV, Section 3 of the Options Rules.
(a)–(e) No change.
Members not subscribing to the Nasdaq Workstation using TradeInfo will be charged a fee of $95 per user per month.
A member firm that has a TradeInfo user subscription may subscribe to the Limit Up/Limit Down Band Lookup add-on service [at no cost beginning April 15, 2013 and] for a fee of $200 per user per month beginning May 1, 2013. The Limit Up/Limit Down Band Lookup
(g)–(h) No change.
* Eligible for 25% discount under the Qualified Market Maker Program during a pilot period expiring on April 30, 2013.
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NASDAQ is proposing to eliminate the free period of the recently-adopted
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. NASDAQ notes that no member firms have subscribed to the service to date, and as a consequence no member firms will be affected by the elimination of the free period for the service. NASDAQ further notes that the member firms may access the information provided by the service through other means, so to the extent that there is a burden on competition resulting from the delay in offering the service, it is appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to delete NYSE Rule 476(a)(8), which addresses wash sales, in order to harmonize the Exchange's rules with the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to delete NYSE Rule 476(a)(8), which addresses wash sales, in order to harmonize the Exchange's rules with the rules of FINRA.
On July 30, 2007, FINRA's predecessor, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSER”) consolidated their member firm regulation operations into a combined organization, FINRA. Pursuant to Rule 17d–2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), NYSE, NYSER and FINRA entered into an agreement (the “Agreement”) to reduce regulatory duplication for their members by allocating to FINRA certain regulatory responsibilities for certain NYSE rules and rule interpretations (“FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules”). NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) became a party to the Agreement effective December 15, 2008.
As part of its effort to reduce regulatory duplication and relieve firms that are members of FINRA, NYSE, and NYSE MKT of conflicting or unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA is now engaged in the process of reviewing and amending the NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in order to create a consolidated FINRA rulebook.
Current NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) prohibits a member, member organization, principal executive, approved person, registered or non-registered employee of a member or member organization, or person otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Exchange from (i) making a fictitious bid, offer, or transaction, (ii) giving an order for the purchase or sale of securities the execution of which would involve no change of beneficial ownership, or (iii) executing such an order with knowledge of its character. In 2009, the Exchange adopted NYSE Rules 6140(a) and (b), which are substantially the same as FINRA Rules 6140(a) and (b)
(1) Executing any transaction in such security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof;
(2) entering any order or orders for the purchase of such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, and at substantially the same price, for the sale of any such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties; or
(3) entering any order or orders for the sale of any such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, and at substantially the same price, for the purchase of such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties.
The Exchange notes that NYSE Rule 476(a)(8), which was adopted at a time when the Exchange was operating in a manual on-Floor trading environment, has a different scienter standard than NYSE Rule 6140 and FINRA Rule 6140. These rules provide that a market participant is prohibited from engaging in wash sales that have the purpose of
On the other hand, NYSE Rule 476(a)(8) prohibits (i) making a fictitious bid, offer, or transaction, (ii) giving an order for the purchase or sale of securities the execution of which would involve no change of beneficial ownership, or (iii) executing such an order with knowledge of its character. The second prong can be read as having no scienter requirement.
The proposed rule change would not result in any material diminution of the Exchange's enforcement authority or any material change in surveillance of potentially violative activity. The Exchange may still bring a disciplinary action in appropriate cases where a market participant engages in a significant amount of trades without change of beneficial ownership, even if such activity does not violate Rule 6140(b) per se because the participant did not act with “purpose.” Such conduct could also give rise to other violations, such as a failure to supervise under NYSE Rule 342, and the Exchange has brought at least one such case.
So that there is no change in the scope of persons subject to disciplinary action for wash sales, the Exchange proposes to make a conforming amendment to NYSE Rules 6140(a) and (b) to provide that the rules apply not only to members and member organizations but also to principal executives, approved persons, registered or non-registered employees of a member or member organization or persons otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Exchange.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather to achieve greater consistency both within NYSE's rules and between NYSE and FINRA rules.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ proposes to establish the Limit Up/Limit Down Band Lookup add-on service to TradeInfo and assess a related subscription fee. The Exchange is proposing to offer the proposed service at no cost to members beginning April 15, 2013
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is
The following charges are assessed by Nasdaq for connectivity to systems operated by NASDAQ, including the Nasdaq Market Center, the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility, and FINRA's OTCBB Service. The following fees are not applicable to the NASDAQ Options Market LLC. For related options fees for Access Services refer to Chapter XV, Section 3 of the Options Rules.
(a)–(e) No change.
Members not subscribing to the Nasdaq Workstation using TradeInfo will be charged a fee of $95 per user per month.
(g)–(h) No change.
* Eligible for 25% discount under the Qualified Market Maker Program during a pilot period expiring on April 30, 2013.
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NASDAQ is proposing to offer member firms a means to review the Limit Up/Limit Down (“LULD”) price bands for individual securities. The National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
LULD price band information is disseminated via the Securities Information Processor feeds (“SIPs”). If a member firm wishes to know what a particular security's price band parameters were during a particular day, including the current day, it must develop a system that will capture and store the data disseminated by the SIPs. Member firms have requested that NASDAQ provide a service that displays LULD price band information for individual securities for both the current day and historically. To meet this need, NASDAQ OMX included a Band Lookup feature in the Limit Locator
To subscribe to the Limit Up/Limit Down Band Lookup service a member firm must also subscribe to TradeInfo. TradeInfo allows a subscribing member firm to query for their [sic] orders submitted to the NASDAQ System and perform certain actions concerning the queried orders, such as canceling open orders. TradeInfo is the means by which a member firm accesses the proposed service.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The proposed service provides useful information to member firms with which they may analyze historical trade executions and reports, and conduct back-testing scenarios. The proposed fee allows NASDAQ to recapture the costs associated with developing and supporting the service, and may provide NASDAQ with a profit to the extent its costs are covered.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 7, 2013, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31 to add a Moving Average Check for incoming Market Orders and marketable limit orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(a) to add a Moving Average Check that would prevent incoming Market Orders and marketable Limit Orders, as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(b), from trading if the order size exceeded certain thresholds. The Exchange believes that the proposed Moving Average Check would serve as an additional safeguard that could help limit potential harm from extreme price volatility by preventing executions of potentially erroneously sized orders.
Specifically, the proposed Moving Average Check would reduce the potential for a single order to disrupt trading in that security by comparing the size of the incoming order to a measure of historical trading activity in that security. The Exchange believes that if an incoming order represents a significant volume as compared to the historical trading activity in that security, that order is likely to be erroneous and should be rejected before it has an opportunity to impact the market. As proposed, the Exchange would perform the following Moving Average Check for all incoming Market Orders and marketable Limit Orders:
• If the size of an incoming Market Order or marketable Limit Order is less than or equal to 50% of the projected 30-day moving average volume for that security, the order would be processed normally.
• If the size of an incoming Market Order or marketable Limit Order is greater than 50% but less than or equal to 75% of the projected 30-day moving average volume for the security, the Exchange would process the order normally and also notify the ETP Holder that the order size was greater than 50% of the projected 30-day moving average volume for the security.
• If the size of an incoming Market Order or marketable limit order is greater than 75% of the projected 30-day moving average volume for the security, the Exchange would reject the order and notify ETP Holder of the reason why the order was rejected.
As proposed, the projected 30-day moving average volume for each security would be calculated by: (i) Taking the prior day's 30-day moving average volume and multiplying that number by 29; (ii) adding to that number the total consolidated last sale volume in that security for the prior trading day; and (iii) dividing the combined number by 30.
1. Seed the projected 30-day moving average volume for Day 0 with the default projected 30-day moving average volume (10,000 shares).
2. Total consolidated last sales volume in XYZ on Day 0 of 20,000 shares.
1. Projected 30-day moving average volume for Day 1 Moving Average Check = 10,333 shares ((10,000 x 29) + 20,000)/30.
2. Total consolidated last sales volume for XYZ on Day 1 of 10,000 shares.
1. Projected 30-day moving average volume for Day 2 Moving Average Check = 10,322 shares ((10,333 x 29) + 10,000)/30.
2. Total consolidated last sales volume for XYZ on Day 2 of 20,000 shares.
1. Projected 30-day moving average volume for Day 3 Moving Average Check = 10,645 [sic] shares ((10,332 x 29) + 20,000)/30.
As proposed, the Moving Average Check would not apply to orders designated for Auctions pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.35
The Exchange believes that the proposed Moving Average Check would provide appropriate thresholds for determining whether an incoming Market Order or marketable Limit Order should either be accepted by the Exchange and processed normally or be rejected. Specifically, the Exchange believes that if the size of the incoming Market Orders or marketable limit orders is greater than 75% of the projected moving average volume for that security, it is likely erroneous and should be rejected. The Exchange proposes to include a notification to the ETP Holder of the reason for the rejection so that the ETP Holder is on notice of why the order was rejected. While the Exchange will permit incoming orders that are greater than 50% but less than or equal to 75% of the projected moving average volume, the Exchange believes that a notification should be provided to the ETP Holder warning that the order is approaching a threshold size for rejection, thereby putting the ETP Holder on notice of the potential impact of that order on the market for that security. Such a notification would also put an ETP Holder on notice of whether an order of such size was intended to be entered or should be modified.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposal will serve as an additional safeguard to help limit potential harm from extreme price volatility by preventing executions from exceedingly large or potentially erroneously sized orders in a manner that promotes a fair and orderly market while protecting investors on the Exchange. In addition, the proposal should act to promote competition amongst market participants on the Exchange by facilitating transactions on the Exchange in a just and equitable faction while protecting investors.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order, approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) proposes to amend the fee schedule of Market Data Express, LLC (“MDX”), an affiliate of CBOE, for the BBO Data Feed for CBOE listed options (“BBO Data Feed” or “Data”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the fees charged by MDX for the BBO Data Feed and to make several clarifying changes to the MDX fee schedule.
The BBO Data Feed also includes certain data that is not included in the data sent to OPRA, namely, (i) totals of customer versus non-customer contracts at the BBO, (ii) All-or-None contingency orders priced better than or equal to the BBO, (iii) BBO data and last sale data for complex strategies (e.g., spreads, straddles, buy-writes, etc.) (“Spread Data”), (iv) BBO data and last sale data for Flexible Exchange (“FLEX”) options traded on the CBOE FLEX Hybrid Trading System, including BBO data and last sale data for FLEX complex strategies (collectively, “FLEX BBO data”), and (v) expected opening price (“EOP”) and expected opening size (“EOS”) information that is disseminated prior to the opening of the market and during trading rotations (collectively, “EOP/EOS data”).
MDX currently charges Customers a “direct connect fee” of $3,500 per connection per month and a “per user fee” of $25 per month per “Authorized User” or “Device” for receipt of the BBO Data Feed by Subscribers.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate both the direct connect fee and the per user fee and replace them with a “data fee”, payable by a Customer, of $5,000 per month for internal use and external redistribution of the BBO Data Feed. A “Customer” is any entity that receives the BBO Data Feed directly from MDX's system or through a connection to MDX provided by an approved redistributor (i.e., a market data vendor or an extranet service provider) and then distributes it internally and/or externally. The data fee would entitle a Customer to provide the BBO Data Feed to an unlimited number of internal users and Devices within the Customer. The data fee would also entitle a Customer to distribute externally the BBO Data Feed to other Customers. A Customer receiving the BBO Data Feed from another Customer would be assessed the data fee by MDX and would be entitled to distribute the Data internally and/or externally.
The Exchange also proposes to make several clarifying changes to the MDX fee schedule. MDX charges Customers a monthly fee of $500 for each port connection to MDX to receive the BBO Data Feed (“Port Fee”).
The proposed fee change is to take effect on May 1, 2013.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange believes the proposed fee is reasonable because it compares favorably to fees that other markets charge for similar products. For example, the Exchange believes NASDAQ OMX PHLX charges Internal Distributors a monthly fee of $4,000 per organization and External Distributors a monthly fee of $5,000 per organization for its “TOPO Plus Orders” data feed, which like the BBO Data Feed includes top-of-book data (including orders, quotes and trades) and other market data. The International Securities Exchange offers a “Top Quote Feed”, which includes top-of-book data, and a separate “Spread Feed”, which like the BBO Data Feed includes order and quote data for complex strategies. The Exchange believes ISE charges distributors of its Top Quote Feed a base monthly fee of $3,000 and distributors of its Spread Feed a base monthly fee of $3,000. The Exchange notes that the BBO Data Feed also competes with products offered by the NYSE entitled NYSE ArcaBook for Amex Options and NYSE ArcaBook for Arca Options that include top-of-book and last sale data similar to the data in the BBO Data Feed. As noted above, the BBO Data Feed also includes FLEX BBO and EOP/EOS data as well as other data.
For the reasons cited above, the Exchange believes the proposed fee for the BBO Data Feed is equitable, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the Exchange believes that no substantial countervailing basis exists to support a finding that the proposed terms and fee for the BBO Data Feed fails to meet the requirements of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the market for options orders and executions is already highly competitive and the Exchange's proposal is itself pro-competitive as described below.
The Exchange believes competition provides an effective constraint on the market data fees that the Exchange, through MDX, has the ability and the incentive to charge. CBOE has a compelling need to attract order flow from market participants in order to maintain its share of trading volume. This compelling need to attract order flow imposes significant pressure on CBOE to act reasonably in setting its fees for market data, particularly given that the market participants that will pay such fees often will be the same market participants from whom CBOE must attract order flow. These market participants include broker-dealers that control the handling of a large volume of customer and proprietary order flow. Given the portability of order flow from one exchange to another, any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably high data fees would risk alienating many of the same customers on whose orders it depends for competitive survival. CBOE currently competes with ten options exchanges (including CBOE's affiliate, C2 Options Exchange) for order flow.
CBOE is constrained in pricing the BBO Data Feed by the availability to market participants of alternatives to purchasing the BBO Data Feed. CBOE must consider the extent to which market participants would choose one or more alternatives instead of purchasing the exchange's data. For example, the BBO data and last sale data available in the BBO Data Feed is included in the OPRA data feed. The OPRA data is widely distributed and relatively inexpensive, thus constraining CBOE's ability to price the BBO Data Feed. In this respect, the OPRA data feed, which includes the exchange's transaction information, is a significant alternative to the BBO Data Feed product.
Further, other options exchanges can and have produced their own top-of-book products, and thus are sources of potential competition for MDX. As noted above, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, ISE and NYSE offer market data products that compete with the BBO Data Feed. In addition, the Exchange believes other options exchanges may currently offer top-of-book market data products for a fee or for free.
The Exchange believes that the BBO Data Feed offered by MDX will help attract new users and new order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving the Exchange's ability to compete in the market for options order flow and executions.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA–4110–DR), dated 04/19/2013.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 04/19/2013, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13549B and for economic injury is 13550B.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Mississippi dated 04/18/2013.
Submit completed loan applications to:
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13543 C and for economic injury is 13544 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Mississippi, Alabama.
Determinations: “Bronze Statue of a Boxer, Hellenistic Period”
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit object, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
Pursuant to section 533 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended (49 U.S.C. 50104), the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has determined not to list any countries as denying fair market opportunities for U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in foreign government-funded airport construction projects.
Scott Pietan, International Procurement Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395–9646, or Arthur Tsao, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395–6987.
Section 533 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended by section 115 of the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Public Law 100–223 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 50104) (“the Act”), requires the USTR to decide whether any foreign country has denied fair market opportunities to U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in connection with airport construction projects of $500,000 or more that are funded in whole or in part by the government of such country. The list of such countries must be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by May 30, 2013.
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by email at:
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation.
Notice.
By
Keith Lusk, Special Programs Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009–2007, telephone: (310) 725–3808, email:
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106–181. The Act required the establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment. The NPOAG was established in March 2001. The advisory group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as chairman of the advisory group.
In accordance with the Act, the advisory group provides “advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the Director-
(1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the amendments made by this title;
(2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands, which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour management plan;
(3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the interests of visitors to national parks; and
(4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands.”
The current NPOAG ARC is made up of one member representing general aviation, three members representing the commercial air tour industry, four members representing environmental concerns, and two members representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG ARC are as follows:
Heidi Williams representing general aviation; Alan Stephen, Elling Halvorson, and Matthew Zuccaro representing commercial air tour operators; Greg Miller, Kristen Brengel, and Dick Hingson representing environmental interests with one open seat; and Rory Majenty and Martin Begaye representing Native American tribes.
Selected to fill the seat representing environmental concerns is Michael Sutton who will be filling a currently open seat. Selected to represent commercial air tour operator interests is Mark Francis who will be filling incumbent Elling Halvorson's seat which expires on May 19, 2013. The term of service for NPOAG ARC
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of funding availability; request for comments.
This notice announces the availability of funding for Indian tribal governments for Tribal Transportation Program Safety Funds (TTPSF) authorized within the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21). The FHWA will distribute these funds as described in this notice on a competitive basis in a manner consistent with the eligibilities of this program.
In addition, this notice proposes criteria FHWA will use to identify projects for funding and describes application procedures. The FHWA requests comments on the content of this notice. The FHWA will take all comments into consideration and publish a final notice of funding availability.
The FHWA will solicit grant applications through the government-wide electronic grants Web site at
All public comments must be received on or before May 30, 2013. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
The FHWA plans to conduct outreach regarding the TTPSF in the form of Webinars on May 1 at 1:00 e.t., (participants can pre-register online at:
You may submit comments, identified by docket number FHWA–2013–0012, by any of the following methods:
Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number FHWA–2013–0012 on your comments. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
For questions about the program discussed herein, contact Ms. Cindi Ptak by telephone at (202) 366–1586; by email at
You may retrieve a copy of the notice through the Federal eRulemaking portal at:
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law MAP–21 (Pub. L. 112–141), which authorizes TTPSF as a set aside of not more than 2 percent of the funds made available under the TTP for each of Federal Fiscal Years (FY) 2013 and 2014. Section 202(e) of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), provides that the funds are to be allocated based on an identification and analysis of highway safety issues and opportunities on tribal lands, as determined by the Secretary, on application of the Indian tribal governments for eligible projects described in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4). Eligible projects described in section 148(a)(4) include strategies, activities, and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature, or address a highway safety problem.
Section 202(e) further specifies that in applying for TTPSF, an Indian tribal government, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior and, as appropriate, with a State, local government, or metropolitan planning organization, shall select projects from the transportation improvement program (TIP), subject to the approval of the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior.
Section 202(e) specifies that TTPSF are to be made available to Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, consistent with other FHWA funding provided to tribes, FHWA proposes that any federally recognized tribe identified on the list of “Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs” (published at 77 FR 47868) is eligible to apply for TTPSF.
Under section 202(e), projects for which Indian tribal governments may apply are highway safety improvement projects eligible under the Highway Safety Improvement Program as described in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4). Projects eligible for funding may include strategies, activities, or projects on a public road that are consistent with a State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature, or address a highway safety problem.
The FHWA proposes to award TTPSF funds based on the selection criteria and policy considerations as outlined below.
The FHWA shall give priority consideration to eligible projects under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4) that fall within one of the following four categories: (1) Safety planning activities; (2) engineering improvements; (3) enforcement and emergency services improvements; and (4) education programs. The priority categories were determined in consultation with the Tribal Transportation Program Coordinating Committee (TTPCC)
The FHWA proposes to allocate the TTPSF among the four categories as follows: (1) Safety planning activities (40 percent); (2) engineering improvements (30 percent); (3) enforcement and emergency services improvements (20 percent); and (4) education programs (10 percent). These funding goals were established with the TTPCC and will be reviewed annually and may be adjusted to reflect current tribal transportation safety priorities and needs. These proposed allocation amounts provide substantial funding for tribal safety plans to reflect the strong need that has been identified in this area and to ensure that all tribes have an opportunity to assess their safety needs and prioritize safety projects. The remaining proposed allocation amounts were established based on the significant need for transportation related capital improvement projects, while still allowing for applications that would cover all 4E's of safety.
The development of a tribal safety plan that is data driven, identifies transportation safety issues, prioritizes activities, is coordinated with the State SHSP and promotes a comprehensive approach to addressing safety needs by including all 4E's is a critical step in improving highway safety. Additional information on developing a tribal safety plan can be found at:
Accordingly, FHWA proposes to award TTPSF for developing and updating tribal safety plans, and other safety planning activities. Eligible uses of funds are described in Section II of this notice and example projects are listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4), which can be found at:
The FHWA will use the following criteria in the evaluation of TTPSF funding requests for tribal safety plans: (1) Development of a tribal safety plan where none currently exists; and (2) age and status of existing tribal safety plans. The FHWA will use the following criteria in the evaluation of TTPSF funding requests for safety planning activities: (1) Inclusion of the activity in a completed State SHSP or tribal transportation safety plan that is no more than 5 years old; (2) submission of supporting data that clearly demonstrates the need for the activity; (3) leveraging of private or other public funding; (4) extent to which the project compliments a comprehensive approach to safety and addresses elements of the 4Es.
Eligible uses of funds are described in Section II of this notice and example projects are listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4) which can be found at:
The FHWA proposes to award TTPSF for engineering improvement projects. The FHWA will use the following criteria in the evaluation of funding requests for engineering improvements: (1) Inclusion of the activity in a completed State SHSP or tribal transportation safety plan that is no more than 5 years old; (2) inclusion of the activity in a completed road safety audit, engineering study, impact assessment or other engineering document; (3) submission of supporting data that clearly demonstrates the need for the project; (4) ownership of the facility; (5) leveraging of private or other public funding; (6) years since the tribe
Eligible uses of funds are described in Section II of this notice and example projects are listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4) which can be found at:
The FHWA proposes to award TTPSF for enforcement and emergency service projects. The FHWA will use the following criteria in the evaluation of funding requests for enforcement and emergency services improvements: (1) Inclusion of the activity in a completed State SHSP or tribal transportation safety plan that is no more than 5 years old; (2) submission of supporting data that clearly demonstrates the need for the project; (3) leveraging of private or other public funding; (4) extent to which the project compliments a comprehensive approach to safety and addresses elements of the 4Es.
Eligible uses of funds are described in Section II of this notice and example projects are listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4) which can be found at:
The FHWA proposes to award TTPSF for education projects. The FHWA will use the following criteria in the evaluation of funding requests for education projects: (1) Inclusion of the activity in a completed State SHSP or tribal transportation safety plan that is no more than 5 years old; (2) submission of supporting data that clearly demonstrates the need for the project; (3) leveraging of private or other public funding; (4) extent to which the project compliments a comprehensive approach to safety and addresses elements of the 4Es.
The TTPSF grant applications will be evaluated in accordance with the below discussed evaluation process. The FHWA will establish an evaluation team to review each application received by FHWA prior to the Application Deadline. The evaluation team will be led by FHWA and will include members from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The team will include technical and professional staff with relevant experience and expertise. The evaluation teams will be responsible for evaluating and rating all of the projects and making funding recommendations.
All proposals will be evaluated and assigned a rating of “Highly Qualified,” “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified.” The ratings, as defined below, are proposed within each priority funding category as follows:
a.
b.
c.
If the number of applications rated as “highly qualified” exceed the amount of available funding, FHWA intends to give priority funding consideration to requests for development of new tribal safety plans.
a.
b.
c.
If the number of applications rated as “highly qualified” exceed the amount of available funding, FHWA intends to give priority funding consideration to those applicants that have provided sufficient data that supports the project and indicates that the project is included in a road safety audit or other engineering study that clearly identifies the improvements that are needed.
a.
b.
c.
If the number of applications rated as “highly qualified” exceed the amount of available funding, FHWA intends to give priority funding consideration to those applicants that have provided sufficient data that supports the project and indicates that the project is included in an existing transportation safety plan.
a.
b.
c.
If the number of applications rated as “highly qualified” exceed the amount of available funding, FHWA intends to give priority funding consideration to those applicants that have provided sufficient data that supports the project and shown the project is included in an existing transportation safety plan.
The FHWA proposes that applicants would include all of the information requested below in their applications. The FHWA may request any applicant to supplement the data in its application, but would encourage applicants to submit the most relevant and complete information the applicant could provide. The FHWA also would encourage applicants, to the extent practicable, to provide data and evidence of project merits in a form that is publicly available or verifiable.
A complete application would consist of: (1) The Standard Form 424 (SF 424) available from Grants.gov; and (2) the narrative attachment to the SF 424 as described below.
Applicants should see
Applicants would attach a supplemental narrative to their submission in Grants.gov to successfully complete the application process. Once completed, the applicant would include the supplemental narrative in the attachments section of the SF 424 mandatory form.
The applicant would identify in the project narrative the eligibility category under which the project identified in the application fits. The applicant also would respond to the application requirements proposed below. The FHWA proposes that the project narrative would be prepared with standard formatting preferences (e.g. a single-spaced document, using a standard 12-point font, such as Times New Roman, with 1-inch margins).
An application would include any information needed to verify that the project meets the statutory eligibility criteria as well as other information required for FHWA to assess each of the proposed criteria specified in Section V (
Consistent with the requirements for an eligible highway safety improvement project under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4), applicants would be required to describe clearly how the project would correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature or would address a highway safety problem. The application would include supporting data.
For ease of review, FHWA proposes that the project narrative generally adhere to the following basic outline, and include a table of contents, project abstract, maps and graphics:
1.
2.
3. Applicant information and coordination with other entities (identification of the Indian tribal government applying for TTPSF, description of cooperation with other entities in selecting projects from the TIP as required under 23 U.S.C. 202(e)(2), information regarding any other entities involved in the project));
4. Grant Funds and Sources/Uses of Project Funds (information about the amount of grant funding requested for the project, availability/commitment of funds sources and uses of all project funds, total project costs, percentage of project costs that would be paid for with the TTPSF, and the identity and percentage shares of all parties providing funds for the project (including Federal funds provided under other programs));
5. A description of how the proposal meets the Selection Criteria identified in Section III (
The applicant would include contact information requested as part of the SF–424. The FHWA would use this information if additional application information is needed or to inform parties of FHWA's decision regarding selection of projects. Contact information would be provided for a direct employee of the lead applicant. Contact information for a contractor, agent, or consultant of the lead applicant is insufficient for FHWA's purposes.
Applications for TTPSF would be submitted through Grants.gov. To apply for funding through Grants.gov, applicants must be properly registered. Complete instructions on how to register and apply can be found at
Registering with Grants.gov is a one-time process; however, processing delays may occur and it can take up to several weeks for first-time registrants to receive confirmation and a user password. Accordingly, FHWA highly recommends that potential applicants start the registration process as early as possible to prevent delays that may preclude submitting an application by the deadlines specified. Applications will not be accepted after the relevant due date; delayed registration is not an acceptable reason for extensions. In order to apply for TTPSF under this announcement and to apply for funding through Grants.gov, all applicants are required to complete the following:
1. Acquire a DUNS Number. A DUNS number is required for Grants.gov
2. Acquire or Renew Registration with the CCR Database. All applicants for Federal financial assistance maintain current registrations in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database. An applicant must be registered in the CCR to successfully register in Grants.gov. The CCR database is the repository for standard information about Federal financial assistance applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients. Entities that have previously submitted applications via Grants.gov are already registered with CCR, as it is a requirement for Grants.gov registration. Please note, however, that applicants must update or renew their CCR registration at least once per year to maintain an active status, so it is critical to check registration status well in advance of relevant application deadlines. Information about CCR registration procedures can be accessed at:
3. Acquire an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) and a Grants.gov Username and Password. Applicants will need to complete an AOR profile on Grants.gov and create a username and password. The assigned DUNS Number is required to complete this step. For more information about the registration process, go to:
4. Acquire Authorization for the AOR from the E-Business Point of Contact (E-Biz POC). The E-Biz POC for the tribe must log in to Grants.gov to confirm the applicant as an AOR. Please note that there can be more than one AOR for your tribe.
5. Search for the Funding Opportunity on Grants.gov. Applicants would use the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this solicitation is 20.205, titled Highway Planning and Construction, when searching for the TTPSF opportunity on Grants.gov.
6. Submit an Application Addressing All of the Requirements Outlined in this Funding Availability Announcement. Within 24 to 48 hours after submitting an electronic application, applicants should receive an email validation message from Grants.gov. The validation message will specify whether the application has been received and validated or rejected, with an explanation. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications at least 72 hours prior to the due date of the application to allow time to receive the validation message and to correct any problems that may have caused a rejection notification.
When uploading attachments, applicants should use generally accepted formats such as .pdf, .doc, and .xls. While applicants may imbed picture files such as .jpg, .gif, .bmp, in your files, they should not save and submit the attachment in these formats. Additionally, the following formats will not be accepted: .com, .bat, .exe, .vbs, .cfg, .dat, .db, .dbf, .dll, .ini, .log, .ora, .sys, and .zip.
If an applicant experiences unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond its control that prevent the submission of an application by the established deadline, such applicant must contact Grants.gov.
To ensure a fair competition for limited TTPSF, the following conditions are not valid reasons to permit late submissions: (1) Failure to complete the registration process before the deadline date; (2) failure to follow Grants.gov instructions on how to register and apply as posted on its Web site; (3) failure to follow all of the instructions in the funding availability notice; and (4) technical issues experienced with the applicant's computer or information technology environment.
Section 1101 of MAP–21 authorized $450,000,000 for the TTP for each of FY 2013 and 2014. Section 1119 of MAP–21 amends 23 U.S.C. 202(e) to provide that not more than 2 percent of such funds made available for the TTP may be allocated for TTPSF. Accordingly, FHWA expects that a maximum of $9,000,000 could be made available in each of FYs 2013 and 2014 for TTPSF. The FHWA anticipates high demand for this limited amount of funding and encourages applications for modest-sized, scalable requests that allow more tribes to receive funding.
Because this is a new category of funding under the TTP and a broad range of eligible activities will be considered, this notice invites interested parties to submit comments about FHWA's implementation of the TTPSF. Interested parties can provide comments on any aspect of FHWA's implementation of the changes required by MAP–21. The FHWA will consider these comments and publish a final notice of funding availability.
The DOT issued Order 5301.1, “Department of Transportation Programs, Policies, and Procedures Affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Tribes” on November 16, 1999. This Order affirmed the DOT's and its Modal Administrations' unique legal relationship with Indian tribes, established DOT's consultation and coordination process with Indian tribes for any action that may significantly or uniquely affect them, and listed goals for Modal Administrations to meet when carrying out policies, programs, and activities affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and tribes. The Department affirms its commitment to these principles, and those set forth in Executive Order 13175 and the President's November 5, 2009, memorandum in establishing the DOT Consultation Plan dated March 4, 2010, and found at:
In furtherance of these documents pertaining to consultation, FHWA informally consulted with the TPPCC in categorizing the eligible activities and determining funding priorities as described herein. In addition to soliciting comments on this notice, FHWA expects to provide other outreach opportunities with tribes through webinars in advance of publication of a final notice of funding availability.
Section 1119 of Pub. L. 112–141; 23 U.S.C. 202(e).
In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated March 26, 2013, the Western New York & Pennsylvania Railroad, LLC (WNYP) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2013–0037.
WNYP seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance of the remaining automatic block signal, interlocking, and traffic control system from Control Point (CP) South Olean at Milepost (MP) BR73.0 up to and including CP North Olean at MP BR66.49 on WNYP's Buffalo Line, as well as on WNYP's Main Line from MP JC–393 to MP JC–397.86, which crosses the Buffalo Line at grade at CP Olean in Olean, NY. All power-operated switches in the application area will be converted to hand operation. Operation will be governed by the General Code of Operating Rules track warrant control limit rules, using a computer-aided dispatching system.
In its petition, WNYP states that it requests the proposed changes due to the reduction in train service activity and a need to eliminate unused and unnecessary track and track appurtenances.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by June 14, 2013 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated February 24, 2013, the Naugatuck Railroad (NAUG) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 240, Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2013–0038.
Specifically, NAUG seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 240.201(d), which provides that only certified persons may operate a locomotive in any class of locomotive or train service, in order to operate an “engineer-for-an-hour” (EFH) program. NAUG is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Railroad Museum of New England, Inc. (Museum), and the EFH program is in support of funding the educational mission of the Museum. NAUG is a Class III shortline railroad that operates and controls the Torrington Secondary line, which is owned by the State of Connecticut, and leased to the railroad. The line extends approximately 20 miles between Waterbury, Connecticut; and Torrington, Connecticut.
In its petition, NAUG proposes to conduct the EFH program between Milepost (MP) 4.5 in Watertown, Connecticut; and MP 17.5 in Torrington, Connecticut. There are no public highway-rail grade crossings between these two locations. NAUG proposes to operate the EFH program under the following conditions and controls: (1) NAUG will use a positive blocking system (pursuant to the Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee Form D Control System rules) to ensure only EFH operations can be operated over a given segment of track, during daylight hours only; (2) NAUG will verify that each participant in the EFH program is in possession of a valid State-issued motor vehicle license; (3) NAUG will evaluate each participant in the EFH program for his or her visual fitness to operate the locomotive with respect to obvious signs of alcohol or drug use; and (4) NAUG will ensure that a certified locomotive engineer is in the locomotive cab at all times.
NAUG also states in its petition that a qualified and certified locomotive engineer will conduct a job briefing with each participant in the EFH program to ensure that all parties know and understand the movement that will be made and each individual's responsibilities in the proposed movements. NAUG proposes to limit the EFH train size to one locomotive and not more than three cars. No revenue passengers or members of the public will be on board during EFH rail operations. NAUG asserts that if FRA were to grant this waiver, it will enable NAUG to generate funds for the Museum to support its goals of refurbishing antique railroad equipment and educating the public about railroad history and operations. NAUG does not believe that the EFH operations will
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received within May 30, 2013 of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated March 11, 2013, the Charlotte Southern Railroad (CHS) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 223, Safety Glazing Standards—Locomotives, Passenger Cars and Cabooses. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2013–0034.
CHS has requested a waiver of compliance from the glazing requirements set forth in 49 CFR 223.11 and 223.15 for one locomotive, two cars, and one equipment/generator car. Specifically, CHS seeks a waiver of compliance for Locomotive CHS 3 constructed in 1956, Butternut Creek #5206 constructed in 1937, Battle Creek #2502 constructed in 1955, and Power Car #5874 constructed in 1949.
CHS operates on approximately 3½ miles of track, and the majority of its operations are through rural or lightly populated areas. In its petition, CHS states that the existing glazing in its locomotive, cars, and equipment/generator car, is in good condition and has no history of glazing-related accidents or injuries.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by June 14, 2013 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as is practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated March 11, 2013, the Adrian & Blissfield Rail Road Company (ADBF) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 223, Safety Glazing Standards—Locomotives, Passenger
ADBF has petitioned FRA for a waiver for compliance from the glazing requirements set forth in 49 CFR 223.15 for the following equipment: The Raisin River #5197, which was constructed in 1937; the Columbia River, which was constructed in 1949; and the Watts Creek Power Car, which was constructed in the 1950s.
ADBF operates on approximately 20 miles of track between Blissfield and Adrian, MI. The majority of ADBF's operations are through rural or lightly populated areas.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by June 14, 2013 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated January 18, 2013, the Illinois Central Railroad (ICR) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2013–0007.
Specifically, ICR seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 232.207, Class IA brake tests—1,000-mile inspection. ICR currently operates a total of five cycle trains and requests to extend the required mileage interval of the Class 1A brake tests of said trains from 1,000 miles to 1,323 miles. ICR acknowledges that the subject trains currently operate as extended-haul trains and that the distance between any two inspections can be 1,500 miles. ICR states that it seems logical that if a train is safe to travel 1,500 miles under the extended-haul provisions, then there is no apparent danger in operating the trains as cycle trains for 1,323 miles between Class IA brake tests. In addition, ICR would enhance inspection quality by replacing the qualified person (transportation employee) with a qualified mechanical inspector (carman) during the Class 1A inspections.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by June 14, 2013 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as is practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated February 14, 2013, the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) have jointly petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2013–0030.
Specifically, BNSF and UP seek a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 232.305(b)(2) for railroad cars tested with automatic single car test devices (ASCTD). The current rule stipulates that if a car is on a shop or repair track for any reason and has not had a single car air brake test within the previous 12-month period, a single car air brake test must be performed. In their petition, UP and BNSF state that when this requirement became effective, the new ASCTDs were not in widespread use. BNSF and UP further state that sufficient time has passed, and enough industry experience has been gained, to establish the advance in testing technology that the ASCTD has over the old manual device. Comparisons of the manual versus the automated testers made by BNSF and UP show an improvement of 11.5 percent in solving air brake-related issues. BNSF and UP submitted additional data to support their waiver petition, which has been placed in the subject docket.
BNSF and UP request that relief be granted to railroad cars tested within the previous 2 years, if shopped for any non-air brake-related reason on a shop or repair track, as set forth in 49 CFR 232.305(b). BNSF and UP propose a test waiver where all cars tested with the ASCTDs will be tracked through the Association of American Railroads' billing records for repeat air brake repairs within the 2-year period from the last single car air brake test performed with an ASCTD. Additionally, BNSF and UP will scan data from the wheel impact load and hot/cold wheel detector reports to see if the test cars develop any detector exceptions within the 2-year time period from the last single car air brake test performed with an ASCTD. BNSF and UP suggest that every 6 months, FRA, BNSF, and UP should hold a conference to review the data. BNSF and UP believe that data from this test waiver will demonstrate the effectiveness of the ASCTDs.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by June 14, 2013 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated January 24, 2013, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an amendment of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 242, Conductor Certification, in Docket Number FRA–2012–0054. On January 15, 2013, FRA granted Amtrak a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 242.403(b), (c)(1)–(3), (d), (e)(1)–(4), (e)(6)–(11), and (f)(1)–(2). The relief granted to Amtrak was contingent on its continued participation in the Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS) pilot project.
Amtrak, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and the United Transportation Union seek to shield the reporting employees and the railroad from punitive sanctions that would otherwise arise as provided in selected sections of 49 CFR 242.403 to encourage conductor reporting of close calls, and to protect conductors and Amtrak from discipline or sanctions arising from the incidents reported pursuant to the Implementing Memorandum of Understanding (IMOU).
The proposed amendment extends the boundaries of inclusion under Article 3 of the IMOU to all Amtrak-owned or -controlled properties nationwide. The added locations include the Northeast Corridor (all main track operations); the Hudson Line; the Michigan Line in New Orleans, LA; and yards and facilities owned by Amtrak connected to other carriers' tracks.
Further, the amendment proposes changing the applicability parameters under Article 3.1 of the Amtrak IMOU, affording C3RS protection to NJ Transit train and engine service employees working in Sunnyside Yard.
Finally, the amendment proposes amending Article 6.4 of the Amtrak IMOU pertaining to special additional criteria for close call event reporting to allow coverage for events involving damage or derailment below the FRA monetary reporting threshold.
Amtrak's C3RS pilot project was initially approved by FRA on May 11, 2010. In Docket Number FRA–2010–0152, Amtrak requested and was granted a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of 49 CFR Part 240, Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers, to support its C3RS pilot project.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received within May 20, 2013 of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated March 21, 2013, New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway (NYSW) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 231, Railroad Safety Appliance Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2013–0032.
NYSW has petitioned FRA for a waiver to operate RailRunner equipment in its service between Syracuse, NY, and North Bergen, NJ. Specifically, NYSW seeks a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of 49 CFR Part 231, which stipulates the number, location, and dimensions for handholds, ladders, sill steps, uncoupling levers, and hand brakes. NYSW also seeks relief from 49 CFR 231.1, which sets forth the standard height for drawbars.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by June 14, 2013 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as is practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated March 11, 2013, the Lapeer Industrial Railroad Company (LIRR) has petitioned the
LIRR has petitioned FRA for a waiver of compliance from the glazing requirements set forth in 49 CFR 223.11 for its locomotive LIRR 5, which was constructed by General Electric in 1950.
LIRR operates on approximately 1.5 miles of track, and the majority of its operations are through rural or lightly populated areas. In its petition, LIRR states that the existing glazing in its locomotive is in good condition, and it has no history of glazing-related accidents or injuries.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by June 14, 2013 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of policy clarification.
The Maritime Administration (“MarAd”) is providing this notice to clarify its policy on the unit of distance measurement to apply when designating Adjacent Coastal States (“ACS”) under the agency's Deepwater Ports licensing program.
Ms. Yvette Fields, Director of the Office of Deepwater Ports and Offshore Activity, Maritime Administration, Room W21–309, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590;
MarAd has reviewed policies and practices with regard to the designation of ACS in the deepwater port application licensing process. In past applications and public notices, MarAd found inconsistency in the use of units of distance to describe the distance between proposed deepwater ports and ACS.
Under 33 U.S.C. 1508(a)(1), when issuing a Notice of Application, MarAd, as delegated by the Secretary of Transportation, shall designate as an ACS “any coastal State which (A) would be directly connected by pipeline to a deepwater port as proposed in an application, or (B) would be located within 15 miles of any such proposed deepwater port.” In general, in its publications, MarAd adopted the units of measurement provided by the deepwater port license applicants in their descriptions of proposed deepwater ports. At different times, MarAd used statute miles (approximately 0.87 nautical miles) or nautical miles (approximately 1.15 statute miles) to describe the location of deepwater ports in its publications.
Due to the configuration and physical location of proposed deepwater port projects in prior applications, the use of either statute or nautical miles did not impact the designation of ACS, since those projects were either connected to the ACS directly by pipeline, or were within both 15 statute and 15 nautical miles from those states. As a result, MarAd was not required to clarify which unit of measurement is the appropriate distance standard to apply when designating an ACS in Notices of Application. However, for proposed port locations where the chosen distance standard is significant to the designation of ACS (applications where the port location falls beyond 15 statute miles but within 15 nautical miles of a potential ACS), clarification of the distance standard is necessary. For the sake of clarity in such instances, MarAd is issuing this Final Notice of Policy Clarification that nautical miles shall be applied when designating ACS under 33 U.S.C. 1508(a)(1).
The Deepwater Port Act (“DWPA” or the “Act”) (33 U.S.C. 1501
Congress did not specify how the 15 mile distance should be measured. Nevertheless, an examination of the entire statute and legislative history leads to the conclusion that Congress intended that for these purposes, where units of distance measurement are not specified as statute miles or nautical miles, those units of measurement should be read in terms of generally accepted nautical standards (i.e., nautical miles).
In enacting the DWPA, Congress declared its purpose to be, among other things, to: “(1) authorize and regulate the location, ownership, construction, and operation of deepwater ports in waters beyond the territorial limits of the United States; [and] (2) provide for the protection of the marine and coastal environment to prevent or minimize any adverse impact which might occur as a consequence of the development of such ports.”
The DWPA does not provide further definition of the terms “territorial limits”, “navigable waters (including the lands therein and thereunder)”, or “contiguous zone.” However, these jurisdictional boundaries have well accepted meanings both in international law and United States law, and help clarify how the 15 mile jurisdictional area for automatic designation of an ACS should be measured. Article 1 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone establishes that a Coastal State's sovereignty extends “beyond its land territory and internal waters, to a belt of sea adjacent to its coast, described as a territorial sea.”
The Submerged Lands Act (“SLA”) was enacted in 1953.
In defining the term “coastal environment”, the DWPA explicitly refers to “navigable waters (including the lands therein and thereunder).”
The legislative history of the DWPA reveals that Congress viewed ACS status as a jurisdictional issue. For example, in the Conference Report to the DWPA, the State's role in approving a deepwater port is discussed in terms of the three-mile limit which is measured in nautical miles. Congress recognized that “under the Submerged Lands Act * * *, the States have either exclusive or concurrent authority with the Federal government over most activities within the 3-mile limit,”
Consistent with Congress' view of ACS status as a jurisdictional issue, the use of nautical miles to determine ACS status allows for an extension of the State's jurisdiction to be measured consistently with the measures of jurisdiction required by law. Absent this interpretation, a State's jurisdiction that is measured in nautical miles would then subsequently be extended by Congress under a different unit of measurement.
In addition to the legislative history, the regulatory history of the Deepwater Ports program provides further support for interpreting the DWPA to apply nautical miles to ACS designations. The original Final Rule in 33 CFR part 148 published on November 10, 1975, defined mile for the purposes of the regulations as a nautical mile.
MarAd published a Notice of Proposed Policy Clarification on Tuesday, March 5, 2013 (78 FR 14411). Interested persons were invited to submit comments on the proposed policy clarification by April 4, 2013. MarAd received one comment. The comment and MarAd's response is set forth in the following paragraph.
Clean Ocean Action, a coalition of diverse groups interested in improving the water quality of the New Jersey and New York coastal marine environment offered their support of the agency's analysis stating,
Clearly, the MARAD analysis of the Congressional Record, international law, and related domestic U.S. law properly led to the conclusion that “miles”, for the purposes of Deepwater Ports, means nautical miles.
Accordingly, as a result of its interpretation of the DWPA, its legislative history, and implementing regulations, MarAd will apply nautical miles when designating ACS in future Notices of Application under 33 U.S.C. 1508(a)(1).
33 U.S.C. 1501,
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden. The
Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2013.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725–17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Mike Joyce, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W52–238, NPO–520, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Joyce's telephone number is (202) 366–5600 and email address is
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, NHTSA previously opened a docket for a 60-day comment period. Based upon comment to the docket, NHTSA modified its research plan. This notice announces that the ICR abstracted below has been forwarded to OMB for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden. This is a request for new collection.
Thus, the total burden per person actually participating in this focus group phase of research is estimated to be 130 minutes (10 minutes for the screening/recruiting telephone call plus 120 minutes in the focus group discussion session). Additionally, the total burden per person recruited (but not participating in the discussions) is 10 minutes. Therefore, the total annual estimated burden imposed by this portion of the collection is approximately 162 hours.
NHTSA also plans to conduct eight 30-minute dealer interviews. Accounting for recruiting and interviewing time, the total annual estimated burden imposed by this portion of the collection is approximately 8 hours.
In total, the annual estimated burden imposed by this collection of information is approximately 170 hours.
In this collection of information, NHTSA is seeking approval to conduct qualitative consumer research and in-depth interviews to test consumer familiarity and understanding of advanced crash avoidance technology systems so that labeling and consumer materials will help consumers make informed vehicle purchase decisions. Specifically, this research will be guided by the following objectives:
(i) Explore consumer familiarity with and understanding of advanced crash avoidance technologies;
(ii) Explore potential nomenclature and rating systems that can be used to communicate information about advanced crash avoidance technologies;
(iii) Guide considerations for design modifications of current New Car Assessment Program Government 5-Star Safety Ratings label to include information about advanced crash avoidance technologies;
(iv) Guide the development of a consumer information program to improve awareness and understanding of advanced crash avoidance technologies.
On January 11, 2013, NHTSA published the 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information to the
Research & Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension of currently approved collections. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The
Written comments should be submitted by May 30, 2013.
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS–42, Room E34–414, RITA, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001, Telephone Number (202) 366–4406, Fax Number (202) 366–3383 or EMAIL
Not only is it imperative that carriers and charter operators retain source documentation, but it is critical that we ensure that DOT has access to these records. Given DOT's established information needs for such reports, the underlying support documentation must be retained for a reasonable period of time. Absent the retention requirements, the support for such reports may or may not exist for audit/validation purposes and the relevance and usefulness of the carrier submissions would be impaired, since the data could not be verified to the source on a test basis.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 USC 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed record retention requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department. Comments should
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Proposed guidance with request for comment; withdrawal of proposed Guidance on Deposit-Related Consumer Credit Products.
The OCC is proposing guidance on safe and sound banking practices and consumer protection in connection with deposit advance products. The OCC is also withdrawing its proposed guidance on Deposit-Related Consumer Credit Products published on June 8, 2011.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 30, 2013.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Please use the title “Guidance on Deposit Advance Products” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this notice by any of the following methods:
•
•
Robert Piepergerdes, Director for Retail Credit Risk, (202) 649–6220; Kimberly Hebb, Director for Compliance Policy, (202) 649–5470; Kenneth Lennon, Assistant Director for Community and Consumer Law, (202) 649–6350; Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is proposing supervisory guidance to clarify the OCC's application of principles of safe and sound banking practices and consumer protection in connection with deposit advance products. This proposed guidance details the principles that the OCC expects OCC-supervised financial institutions to follow in connection with any deposit advance product to address potential reputational, compliance, legal and credit risks. The OCC expects institutions to apply the principles set forth in this guidance to any deposit advance product they offer.
The OCC is also withdrawing its proposed guidance on Deposit-Related Consumer Credit Products published on June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33409).
A deposit advance product is a small-dollar, short-term loan that a depository institution (bank) makes available to a customer whose deposit account reflects recurring direct deposits. The customer is allowed to take out a loan, which is to be repaid from the proceeds of the next direct deposit. These loans typically have high fees, are repaid in a lump sum in advance of the customer's other bills, and often do not utilize fundamental and prudent banking practices to determine the customer's ability to repay the loan and meet other necessary financial obligations.
The OCC continues to encourage banks to respond to customers' small-dollar credit needs; however, banks should be aware that deposit advance products can pose a variety of safety and soundness, compliance, consumer protection, and other risks. The OCC is proposing guidance to ensure that any bank offering these products does so in a safe and sound manner and does not engage in practices that would increase credit, compliance, legal, and reputation risks to the institution.
The text of the proposed supervisory guidance on deposit advance products follows:
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is proposing supervisory guidance to depository institutions (banks) that offer deposit advance products. This guidance is intended to ensure that banks are aware of the significant risks associated with deposit advance products. The guidance also supplements the OCC's existing guidance on payday loans and subprime lending.
The maximum dollar amount of the advance is typically limited to a percent or amount of the recurring monthly deposit. For example, some banks permit the deposit advance to be the lesser of $500 or 50 percent of the scheduled direct deposits from the preceding statement cycle, rounded up to the nearest $10. The advance limit does not include the fee associated with the advance. In addition, some banks will allow the advance even if the customer's account is currently overdrawn. Some banks also permit a customer to exceed the advance limit, at the bank's discretion.
Typically, the bank does not analyze the customer's ability to repay the loan based on recurring debits or other indications of a need for residual income to pay other bills. The decision to advance credit to borrowers, based solely on the amount and frequency of their deposits, stands in contrast to banks' traditional underwriting standards for other products, which typically include an assessment of the ability to repay the loan based on an analysis of the borrower's finances.
If the deposit account funds are insufficient to repay the fee and the advance, then the account goes into overdraft status. Some banks will charge an overdraft fee based on the deposit advance overdrawing the account. Other banks will only charge overdraft fees based on any subsequent transactions that overdraw the account.
Although the deposit advance limit is based on an amount or percentage of the monthly deposit, the repayment can be based on a shorter time period. For example, if a customer receives direct deposits of $500 every other Friday from her employer, her monthly direct deposit would be $1000. Under the typical bank's advance limit, she could receive an advance of $500 with a fee of $50. If she obtains the deposit advance on the Thursday before her payday, then the bank will obtain repayment on Friday. The bank will take the entire $500 paycheck. In addition, the customer will still owe $50 in principal because the deposit was only sufficient to pay the $50 fee and $450 in principal. Assuming the customer has no other source of income, the customer will need to rely on savings to pay bills until the next paycheck. At the next paycheck, the bank will take the remaining $50 in principal and the customer will have $450 to pay all outstanding bills.
Some banks have implemented alternative repayment methods that provide more flexibility to the customer. For example, some banks will permit repayment to extend through to the second direct deposit if the first direct deposit falls below a specific dollar threshold. In addition, some banks allow payment by mail rather than electronic transfer, but may charge a fee for this option. Finally, some banks offer an installment loan option, but may also charge an additional fee or may only offer this option if the customer cannot repay the advance and fee from the monthly deposits.
Although the OCC encourages banks to respond to customers' small-dollar credit needs, deposit advance products pose supervisory risks. These products share a number of characteristics seen in traditional payday loans, including: high fees; very short, lump-sum repayment terms; and inadequate attention to the consumer's ability to repay. As such, banks need to be aware of these products' potential to harm consumers, as well as elevated safety and soundness, compliance, and consumer protection risks.
The combined impact of an expensive credit product coupled with short repayment periods increases the risk that borrowers could be caught in a
To address concerns that certain borrowers become dependent on deposit advance products to meet their daily expenses (as evidenced by their repeated borrowings), certain lenders now require borrowers who have taken out a specified number of deposit advance loans within a certain time frame to wait for a specified period before they are eligible to take out a new loan. However, the OCC is concerned these “cooling-off” periods can be easily avoided and are ineffective in preventing repeated usage of these high-cost, short-term loans.
Weak underwriting increases the risk that the borrower's account may become overdrawn and result in multiple overdraft fees when subsequent transactions are presented for payment. Some banks assess overdraft fees when the automatic repayment of the deposit advance loan causes the associated account to reflect a negative balance.
Numerous and repeated extensions of credit to the same individual may be substantially similar to continuous advances and subject the bank to increased credit risk. While re-aging, extensions, deferrals, renewals, and rewrites of lending products can be used to help borrowers overcome temporary financial difficulties, repeated re-aging credit practices can cloud the true performance and delinquency status of the portfolio.
Relying on the amount of the customer's incoming deposits without consideration of expected outflows does not allow for a proper assessment of the customer's ability to repay the loan and other necessary expenses. This failure to properly assess the borrower's financial capacity, a basic underwriting principle, increases default risk.
Deposit advance products must comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations, some of which are outlined below. State laws also may be applicable, including usury laws and laws on unfair or deceptive acts or practices. It is important that banks have their deposit advance products reviewed by counsel for compliance with all applicable laws prior to implementation. Furthermore, although the guidance below outlines federal laws and regulations as of the date this guidance is published, applicable laws and regulations are subject to amendment. In addition, statutes and regulations will have different applications depending on how a deposit advance product is structured. Banks offering deposit advances should carefully consider whether and how these laws and rules will apply to the particular version of a deposit advance product they are providing. Accordingly, banks should monitor applicable laws and regulations for revisions and to ensure that their deposit advance product is fully compliant. Federal laws and regulations applicable to deposit advance products include, but are not limited to, the following:
Deposit advance products may raise issues under the FTC Act depending upon how the products are marketed and implemented. Any FTC Act analysis will be dependent on the facts and circumstances in a particular matter.
The prohibition on UDAP applies not only to the product, but to every stage and activity, from product development to the creation and rollout of marketing campaigns, and to servicing and collections. For example, marketing materials and disclosures should be clear, conspicuous, accurate and timely; and should fairly and adequately describe the terms, benefits, potential risks and material limitations of the product.
In addition to the general prohibition against discrimination, ECOA and Regulation B contain specific rules concerning procedures and notices for credit denials and other adverse actions. Regulation B defines the term “adverse action,” and generally requires a creditor who takes an adverse action to send a notice to the consumer providing, among other things, the reasons for the adverse action.
Deposit advance lending presents significant consumer protection and safety and soundness concerns, irrespective of whether the products are issued by a bank directly or by third parties. The OCC will take appropriate supervisory action to prevent harm to consumers, to address any unsafe or unsound banking practices associated with these products, and to ensure compliance with all applicable laws. Examinations will focus on compliance with applicable consumer protection statutes and potential safety and soundness issues.
Examiners will assess credit quality, including underwriting and credit administration policies and practices. In addition, examiners will assess the adequacy of capital, reliance on fee income, and adequacy of the allowance for loan and lease losses. Compliance with applicable federal consumer protection statutes, management's oversight, and relationships with third parties will also be assessed.
Deposit advance loans often have weaknesses that may jeopardize the liquidation of the debt. Borrowers often have limited repayment capacity. Banks should adequately review repayment capacity to assess whether borrowers will be able to repay the loan without needing to incur further deposit advance borrowing.
Deposit advance loans that have been accessed repeatedly or for extended periods of time are evidence of “churning” and inadequate underwriting. Banks should monitor for repeated or extended use, as will be discussed in greater detail in the discussion of underwriting expectations below.
Bank policies regarding the underwriting of deposit advance loan products should be written and approved by the bank's board of directors, and consistent with the bank's general underwriting standards and risk appetite. Factors a bank should address in its written underwriting policies for deposit advance products include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
•
•
•
○ An analysis of the customer's account for recurring deposits (inflows) and checks/credit/customer withdrawals (outflows) over at least six consecutive months. Lines of credit of any sort, including overdrafts, and drafts from savings should not be considered inflows. In reviewing customers' transactions to determine deposit advance eligibility, the bank should consider the customers' net surplus or deficit at the end of each of the preceding six months, and not rely on a six-month transaction average.
○ After conducting the above described analysis, determine whether an installment repayment is more appropriate.
•
•
•
○ Repeated overdrafts (establish/set a certain number during a specified number of months).
○ Evidence that the borrower is overextended with respect to total credit obligations.
Banks should maintain adequate oversight of deposit advance programs and adequate quality control over those products and services to minimize exposure to potential significant financial loss, reputation damage, and supervisory action. Management should provide the appropriate oversight and allocate sufficient qualified staff to monitor deposit advance programs. Results of oversight activities should be reported periodically to the financial institution's board of directors or designated committee, including identified weaknesses, which should be documented and promptly addressed.
The OCC recognizes the need for responsible small-dollar credit products among consumers. A number of banks are currently offering reasonably priced small-dollar loans at reasonable terms to their customers. If such loans are structured properly, they can provide a safe and affordable means for borrowers to transition away from reliance on high-cost debt products that do not appropriately serve their needs. The OCC encourages these banks to continue to offer these products, consistent with safety and soundness and other supervisory considerations, and encourage other banks to consider offering such products as well. Properly managed small-dollar loan products offered with reasonable terms and at a reasonable cost do not pose the same level of supervisory risk as deposit advance products.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Indian Tribal Governments Treated as States for Certain Purposes.
Written comments should be received on or before July 1, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be directed to Gerald J. Shields, at (202) 972–4374, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning regulation section 601.601, Rules and Regulations.
Written comments should be received on or before July 1, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Gerald J. Shields at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 927–4374, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8873, Extraterritorial Income Exclusion.
Written comments should be received on or before July 1, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6511, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–3215, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and public comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and the related form for this information collection, contact the
DATE: Comments must be submitted on or before May 30, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492, Fax (202) 632–7583 or email
The Complaint Intake Form will enable VA to identify the entity or individual not in compliance with the Principles of Excellence and to assess the complaints of noncompliance. Assessment of compliance will include identifying areas we can improve to ensure adherence to the Principles of Excellence. The respondent will submit a complaint or allegation that an entity or individual has not adhered to the Principles of Excellence. The information gathered on the form can only be obtained from the individual respondent.
We are conducting a single 30-day public comment review period pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13. This emergency approval, which will be for a limited time, will be followed by a request for extension of the approval for the standard 3-year period. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
By direction of the Secretary: