Forest Service
Engineers Corps
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
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.
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or we) adopts a final rule that amends regulations governing operational and strategic planning of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac). Among other things, the final rule requires Farmer Mac to submit a capital plan to the Office of Secondary Market Oversight (OSMO) on an annual basis and requires Farmer Mac to notify OSMO under certain circumstances before making a capital distribution. The final rule revises the current capital adequacy planning requirements to place more emphasis on the quality and level of Farmer Mac's capital base and promote best practices for capital adequacy planning and stress testing. We view high quality capital as the primary resource that must be available to cover unexpected losses and ensure long-term financial flexibility and viability.
This regulation will be effective 30 days after publication in the
The objective of this rulemaking is to improve Farmer Mac's long-term safety and soundness and continuity of Farmer Mac operations so that Farmer Mac will be better positioned to fulfill its public mission under a range of economic conditions. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on January 25, 2013.
Farmer Mac is an institution of the Farm Credit System (System), regulated by the FCA through the OSMO. Congress established Farmer Mac in 1988 to create a secondary market for agricultural real estate mortgage loans, rural housing mortgage loans, and rural utilities loans, and it is an instrumentality of the United States. Title VIII of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act), governs Farmer Mac.
Other institutions of the System are the Farm Credit Banks (AgFirst Farm Credit Bank, AgriBank Farm Credit Bank, the Farm Credit Bank of Texas), the Agricultural Credit Bank (CoBank, ACB), the banks' affiliated associations, and their related service organizations.
However, only the other System institutions are entitled to own, and do own, Class B voting common stock in Farmer Mac and, thus, have the right to elect five directors to the Farmer Mac board. The other class of voting stock, Class A, may be held only by insurance companies, banks, and financial entities that are not part of the System, and they also have the right to elect five directors to the Farmer Mac board. The remaining five board members are appointed by the President.
The purpose of bank capital generally is to provide a cushion to absorb unexpected losses and improve an institution's long-term resilience throughout all phases of business and economic cycles. The recent global financial crisis underscored the importance of capital adequacy planning, including maintaining high quality capital. In response to the crisis, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) proposed the Basel III framework, which expands and clarifies international standards on regulatory capital with the intent to raise the quality, quantity, and transparency of regulatory capital.
Farmer Mac's statutory capital standards were enacted in 1991
The regulatory requirements of the RBCST were implemented in FCA's regulations at part 652, subpart B in 2002 and have been revised several times. While the RBCST provides a valuable alternative perspective as a risk index of Farmer Mac's operations from quarter to quarter, the Act prescribes several components of the model's design that constrain its robustness as the only approach to calculating risk-based capital required by regulation. Under certain conditions, the Act's provisions do not impose a significant level of stress; for example, the Act's interest rate stress provisions do not impose a significantly stressful scenario of interest rate shock in very low interest rate environments such as the current one.
In addition, the Act's minimum regulatory capital standards do not necessarily ensure that Farmer Mac holds a sufficient amount of high quality capital—primarily common equity and retained earnings—to survive periods of high financial stress. The statutory definition of “core capital” broadly defines the types of capital instruments that may be included without sufficient distinctions based on the quality of the capital components. More recent views of capital, including the Basel III framework for stock corporations, make much finer distinctions between, for example, different structures of preferred stock on the basis of the terms of their underlying contractual provisions. These finer distinctions include how much incentive is built into preferred stock terms for the issuer to redeem the shares. An example of such an incentive would be significant step-ups in dividend rates over time. Such provisions create greater uncertainty around the relative permanence of that capital and, therefore, how available it will be to cover unexpected losses in the future. The final rule revises the current capital adequacy planning requirements to increase our regulatory focus on the quality and level of capital and advance best practices for capital adequacy planning and stress testing at Farmer Mac.
We received two comment letters, one from Farmer Mac and one from the Farm Credit Council. Both commenters generally acknowledge the value of sound capital planning practices to enable the regulated entity to fulfill its statutory mission over the long term.
Farmer Mac generally supported the NPRM's emphasis on capital planning best practices as well as its focus on quality of capital standards as being consistent with a greater ability to absorb unexpected losses and maintain safe and sound operations. The Farm Credit Council is a trade association that represents the interests of the Farm Credit banks, the banks' affiliated associations, and related service organizations. The Farm Credit Council does not represent Farmer Mac and, in its comment letter, stated that it was “extremely concerned with the continuing lack of transparency regarding Farmer Mac's somewhat limited status as an institution of the [Farm Credit System].” We are unsure what the Farm Credit Council means by Farmer Mac's status as an institution of the System being “limited,” but we refer readers of this rule to the Background section of this preamble for a delineation of the relationships between Farmer Mac and the other System institutions.
In its comment letter, the Farm Credit Council made a number of recommendations for revisions to the proposed rule that are not permitted by the provisions of the Farm Credit Act that pertain to Farmer Mac. For example, the Farm Credit Council recommended that FCA include binding capital adequacy requirements through the capital plan and further require the Farmer Mac board to set capital levels consistent with all Basel III standards and at or above the levels required by regulators and financial authorities worldwide in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The Farm Credit Council further recommended that the rule limit the discretion of Farmer Mac's board so that the standard established is never less than the minimum amount required by the Basel III framework after inclusion of the conservation buffer. While the FCA has the authority and discretion to take supervisory and enforcement actions to address unsafe and unsound conditions and practices, sections 8.31 to 8.38 of the Act already
The Farm Credit Council also recommended strengthening the rule to ensure that all business risks, capital quality and leverage are reflected, to impose specific capital measurements on Farmer Mac rather than allowing Farmer Mac some flexibility to choose what capital measurements to apply, and to eliminate risk arising from capital arbitrage. We believe this new rule, with its focus on capital planning and capital adequacy, already requires Farmer Mac to address all business risks because adverse outcomes in any risk area impact capital levels either directly (e.g., fair value changes in available-for-sale investments) or indirectly (e.g., increased provision expense reduces net income closed out to retained earnings). We expect Farmer Mac to consider stress scenarios that reflect all business risks in its stress testing operations. We believe that capital quality and risks associated with capital structure (i.e., leverage) should also be considered in stress testing, and the proposed rule specifically incorporated capital adequacy ratios that require an evaluation of capital quality through its definition of Tier 1 equity. Regarding the recommendation that the rule specify the use of Basel III Tier 1 equity definitions, we believe the proposal appropriately makes reference to Basel III Tier 1 equity as indicative of the type of high quality capital measure FCA expects Farmer Mac to establish while, also appropriately, allowing sufficient flexibility to consider adjustment of that definition where it is justified. For example, adjustments may be appropriate to take into consideration Farmer Mac's status as a GSE and the specialized nature of its business providing a secondary market for agricultural mortgages and rural utility loans.
The Farm Credit Council commented that the rule should be strengthened to eliminate the risk arising from capital arbitrage. FCA expects Farmer Mac to hold adequate capital in relation to risk at all times and not merely in relation to regulatory minimum requirements. The precise level of risk in each agricultural mortgage differs and, therefore, so would the precisely adequate capital allocation to that loan. As a practical matter, such an ideal level of precision in capital allocation (and regulation) is difficult to achieve. For that reason, FCA closely monitors Farmer Mac's loan administration processes, including the risk ratings it allocates internally to its loans—which ratings have a direct impact on capital-to-risk weighted assets ratios and assessments of Farmer Mac's capital adequacy.
Finally, the Farm Credit Council commented that the rule should include binding capital adequacy requirements. This rulemaking makes clear the Agency's position that capital must not be managed solely in relation to the requirements set forth in the Act. Rather, the requirements in the Act should be weighed in the context of other perspectives on capital adequacy, including those set forth in this rulemaking.
The Farm Credit Council commented that our reference to “goals and objectives” in paragraph (a) was not clear because the cited section has no specific reference to “goals and objectives.” We intended the citation to refer to “measurable goals and objectives” required in § 652.60(b)(5) rather than to § 652.61(c)(2)(i)(B) and to provide a specific example found—the newly required minimum Tier 1 ratio found at § 652.61(c)(2)(ii)(A). We have corrected this in the final rule. The Farm Credit Council also stated that § 652.60 appears to limit board accountability as written. We believe that such an interpretation largely stems from the incorrect citation and that the correction of that citation makes much clearer the board's responsibility and accountability for setting capital adequacy requirements, including specific goals and objectives, and establishing a comprehensive capital plan.
The Farm Credit Council commented that the proposed rule should have included the same diversity and inclusion in Farmer Mac's human capital plan as are currently required in similar plans of System banks and associations. Because such provisions were not in the proposed rule, the Agency is not including such provisions in this final rule. The Agency has a rulemaking pending on this topic for which an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued in 2011,
The Farm Credit Council commented that capital plan requirements in the proposed rule do not match those that apply to System banks and associations (§ 615.5200). While we view most if not all of these elements as appropriate for inclusion in an operational and strategic plan for Farmer Mac, we believe they are included either specifically or in substance through other regulatory requirements and supervisory processes. For example, the sufficiency of liquid funds is required in § 652.35, the capability of management is covered in the proposed rule in § 652.60(b)(2). With the improved clarity provided by the corrected reference, we otherwise adopt these provisions as proposed.
The Farm Credit Council commented that Farmer Mac should be required “beyond stress testing” to review its existing business practices for “accumulation of future risks” and gives the example of accumulating agricultural mortgages without creating an actively trading secondary market in agricultural mortgage-backed securities which the Farm Credit Council believes to be a part of Farmer Mac's “stated mission.” We believe that the proposed rule's requirements consider not only existing practices and conditions but also potential future practices under § 652.61(c)(2)(i) scope of operations. That element requires an assessment of the expected uses and sources of capital over the planning horizon that reflects Farmer Mac's size, complexity, risk profile, and scope of operations, assuming both expected and stressful conditions, including projected revenues, losses, reserves, and pro forma capital levels, including the core capital and regulatory capital ratios required by sections 8.32 and 8.33 of the Act, the Tier 1 ratio as defined in this section, and any additional capital measures deemed relevant by Farmer Mac, over the planning horizon.
We believe that excessive program asset growth, or the “accumulation of risks,” could raise a concern related to adequate capital regardless of whether it is held on-balance sheet or off-balance sheet. However, The Farm Credit Council's comment did not include a citation to support its view that Farmer Mac's stated mission is to create an actively trading secondary market for agricultural mortgages or mortgage-backed securities; so we are unable to address that assertion.
The Farm Credit Council made a number of comments regarding the risks on Farmer Mac's balance sheet and the use of short-term funding and derivatives as related to Farmer Mac's mission. We note that re-funding risk management is being addressed by FCA under a separate rulemaking in the proposed Liability Maturity Management Plan (LMMP) proposed in the currently pending rulemaking
Farmer Mac commented that the definition of “Capital Action” (§ 652.61(b)) includes issuance of debt or equity as well as any similar action that OSMO determines could impact Farmer Mac's consolidated capital. Farmer Mac believes this provision, combined with the provision requiring the inclusion in the capital plan of all planned capital actions over the planning horizon (§ 652.61(b)), could be unduly burdensome because the nature, volume, and timing of debt or equity transactions will vary, making it difficult to apply OSMO guidance received from past transactions. In response we clarify that the requirement to include planned capital actions in the capital plan does not prohibit unplanned capital actions over the planning horizon and would not prevent Farmer Mac from acting on advantageous developments in the markets that might motivate an unplanned capital action. We further clarify that our reference to debt in this context was intended to refer to debt that can impact consolidated capital, such as certain subordinated debt.
We did not intend to include normal debt issuance operations in the definition of “capital action.” Most of the debt routinely issued by Farmer Mac does not affect its consolidated capital; so it would not be included in this definition. To eliminate confusion, we have deleted the reference to debt in the final rule. Should Farmer Mac issue debt that does affect its consolidated capital, the FCA has authority to determine to treat it as a capital action.
The Farm Credit Council asked FCA to remove OSMO's discretion to approve an alternative definition of Tier 1 Capital that Farmer Mac might submit and instead require it to select from the analogous definitions established by Basel III, the Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), or the Federal Reserve. It further requested that our regulations follow specifically Basel III and establish definitions for Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1), as well as Tier 2 capital ratios and that those be set in the regulations no lower than the levels applied to “other regulated lenders.” The Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposed a Tier 1 capital definition (and Additional Tier 1 capital) which stipulated the selected approach must be as set forth in Basel III or as defined by the OCC, FDIC or the Federal Reserve. This provision is generally consistent with what the Farm Credit Council is requesting but includes additional flexibility for OSMO to consider a submitted alternative measure of high quality capital. The added flexibility to consider an alternative (but similar) approach is appropriate because we do not share the Farm Credit Council's view that an international standard is quickly solidifying (e.g. Basel III and Federal regulators' approaches are not exactly the same). We finalize this definition as proposed but note that OSMO will base its approval on whether any submitted alternative approach is both justified on the basis of Farmer Mac's relatively unique business model and sufficiently consistent with and as strong as the approaches adopted by other regulators.
The Farm Credit Council expressed concern that the proposed rule contains no indication of consequences for receiving an unfavorable OSMO review of a capital plan, while other System institutions would receive a capital directive “if their capital ratios are unmet.” It further states that FCA has not clearly identified its intent with respect to enforcing the proposed rule requirements. We clarify here that a deficient plan would result in heightened oversight and supervision as it would with any other FCA regulated entity—along with potential changes in Farmer Mac's assigned Financial Institution Rating System ratings, as well as any other enforcement tool at our disposal. We also note that § 615.5355(a), which describes the purpose of a capital directive and the scope of its issuance, does not provide for the issuance of a capital directive to a System bank or association for failure to meet the minimum capital levels the institution sets for itself under the capital planning regulation in § 615.5200, that applies to System institutions other than Farmer Mac. Likewise, the FCA does not anticipate issuing a capital directive to Farmer Mac for failure to achieve the minimum capital ratios it sets in its capital plan.
The Farm Credit Council stated its belief that it would be prudent for the FCA to notify the authorizing congressional committees if Farmer Mac submits a deficient plan to OSMO. In response, we note that such notification would be an option for FCA regardless of whether it is required by the regulations.
The Farm Credit Council expressed concern that the proposed rule does not require Farmer Mac to make public its capital plan and its ongoing compliance with internal board-established minimum capital levels. The Farm Credit Council asked FCA to require Farmer Mac to publish a summary of its capital plan including internal board-set minimum capital ratios and to disclose immediately to shareholders when it fails to comply with the plan. We believe that such a revision in the final rule is not necessary to achieve the purposes of the rule; so we are not adopting the Farm Credit Council's suggestion at this time. However, we will take this suggestion into consideration in future rulemakings.
Farmer Mac commented that the 15-day notice required in advance of board consideration of a capital distribution is likely to be impractical and burdensome as applied to debt instruments. As described above, in the final rule we are revising the definition of “capital distribution” generally to limit its application to equity instruments only. Therefore, a 15-day notice will not be required for issuances of debt unless the FCA makes a determination to treat a particular debt instrument as equity because it affects Farmer Mac's consolidated capital.
Farmer Mac also commented that redemptions of equity that are “an inherent component” of the instrument, such as dividend rate step-ups in preferred stock issuances, may be impractical for timing-related reasons. Farmer Mac stated that such transactions might only be raised as an item for board consideration just prior to the Board's meeting, rather than a period of more than 15 days. We believe that, despite the fact that step-ups can be thought of as making redemption an inherent component of some issuances, they are infrequent and important enough that planning for board consideration of such transactions should always be done in the context of strategic planning that is long term or at least intermediate term, rather than over a period that is very short term. We believe that boards should be provided ample time to deliberate over such requests and that management should be prepared to present and justify such requests well in advance of 15 days of the board's consideration. As we stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, we believe an enhanced level of dialogue between the Agency and Farmer Mac in advance of capital distributions will improve the level of FCA's oversight of, and communication with, the regulated entity. Such enhanced dialogue will also provide the board with valuable external perspective on such decisions from both safety and soundness and
However, we believe the comment has merit as it pertains to capital distributions that the board has already been informed of through the capital planning process. A shorter time allotted for final board deliberation on planned capital distributions is appropriately left to the discretion of board's guidance to management because the board has already approved the capital plan and with it the anticipated distribution in accordance with its strategic vision and broader operational planning process. Therefore, we revise this section to eliminate the notification requirement for capital distributions set forth in the capital plan (i.e., specifically scheduled as to amount and timing along with a discussion of the planned distribution) submitted to FCA. This new exception to the notification requirement in the final rule would not apply in the event that OSMO determines a capital plan has not adequately taken into account OSMO's assessment as required under § 652.61(f) in accordance with newly added § 652.62(c).
The Farm Credit Council commented that the capital distribution notice requirement lacks specificity regarding supervisory action and should include detail on when OSMO would prohibit a distribution. The Farm Credit Council stated its belief that FCA should not allow Farmer Mac to pay any dividends if it is not in compliance with its capital plan and there should not be standing authority for Farmer Mac to pay dividends if the amount per share is unchanged from prior period. The Farm Credit Council points to the fact that the Agency has consistently taken the position that System banks and associations are not permitted to pay patronage unless the institution can demonstrate compliance with regulatory capital standards. The Farm Credit Council asks that FCA be consistent in its policy on capital distributions with System banks and associations and other banking regulators.
We believe that Farmer Mac would effectively be held to the same standard the Farm Credit Council points to in its comment. That is, if Farmer Mac were unable to demonstrate compliance with its regulatory capital standards, the Agency could bring an enforcement action which would likely put an end to common dividend payments and possibly preferred dividends as well. However, to address the Farm Credit Council's concerns in the final rule, § 652.62(c) is revised to eliminate the standing authority for Farmer Mac to pay dividends if the amount per share is unchanged from prior period (as well as planned distributions regardless of change from prior periods) if OSMO determines a Farmer Mac capital plan has not adequately taken into account OSMO's assessment as required under § 652.61(f).
Farmer Mac asked us to clarify whether the requirement in proposed § 652.61(c)(1)(iii) that the Farmer Mac board review the capital plan can be delegated to a committee and whether FCA expects the board to receive a written report that addresses all of the considerations specified in the proposed rule. The FCA confirms that the rule requires the entire board of Farmer Mac to review and approve the written capital plan before submission to the FCA, and such review is not delegable to a committee.
Farmer Mac has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify it as a small entity. Therefore, Farmer Mac is not a “small entity” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Capital, Investments, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 652 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Secs. 4.12, 5.9, 5.17, 8.11, 8.31, 8.32, 8.33, 8.34, 8.35, 8.36, 8.37, 8.41 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2183, 2243, 2252, 2279aa–11, 2279bb, 2279bb–1, 2279bb–2, 2279bb–3, 2279bb–4, 2279bb–5, 2279bb–6, 2279cc); sec. 514 of Pub. L. 102–552, 106 Stat. 4102; sec. 118 of Pub. L. 104–105, 110 Stat. 168.
(a) Farmer Mac's board of directors is responsible for ensuring that Farmer Mac maintain capital at a level that is sufficient to ensure continued financial viability and provide for growth. In addition, Farmer Mac's capital must be sufficient to meet statutory and regulatory requirements as well as the goals and objectives required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section, including the Tier 1 ratio required in § 652.61(c)(2)(ii)(A). Farmer Mac must notify the OSMO within 10 calendar days of determining that capital is not sufficient to meet those goals and objectives.
(b) No later than 65 days after the end of each calendar year, Farmer Mac's board of directors must adopt an operational and strategic business plan for at least the next 3 years. The plan must include:
(1) A mission statement;
(2) A business and organizational overview and an assessment of management capabilities;
(3) An assessment of Farmer Mac's strengths and weaknesses;
(4) A review of the internal and external factors that are likely to affect Farmer Mac during the planning period;
(5) Measurable goals and objectives;
(6) A discussion of how these factors might impact Farmer Mac's current financial position and business goals;
(7) Forecasted income, expense, and balance sheet statements for each year of the plan;
(8) A marketing plan, and
(9) A capital plan in accordance with § 652.61.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) Farmer Mac must develop and maintain a capital plan each year.
(ii) Farmer Mac must submit its complete annual capital plan to OSMO by March 1 or such later date as directed by OSMO, after consultation with the FCA Board.
(iii) Prior to submission of the capital plan under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, Farmer Mac's board of directors must:
(A) Review the robustness of Farmer Mac's process for assessing capital adequacy,
(B) Ensure that any deficiencies in Farmer Mac's process for assessing capital adequacy are appropriately remedied; and
(C) Approve Farmer Mac's capital plan.
(2)
(i) An assessment of the expected uses and sources of capital over the planning horizon that reflects Farmer Mac's size, complexity, risk profile, and scope of operations, assuming both expected and stressful conditions, including:
(A) Projected revenues, losses, reserves, and pro forma capital levels, including the core capital and regulatory capital ratios required by sections 8.32 and 8.33 of the Act, the Tier 1 ratio as defined in this section, and any additional capital measures deemed relevant by Farmer Mac, over the planning horizon under expected conditions and under a range of at least two progressively severe stress scenarios developed by Farmer Mac appropriate to its business model and portfolios, as well as any scenarios provided by the Director of OSMO. At least 15 calendar days prior to this stress testing, Farmer Mac must provide to OSMO a description of the expected and stressed scenarios that Farmer Mac intends to use to conduct its annual stress test under this section.
(B) A description of all planned capital actions over the planning horizon.
(ii) A detailed description of Farmer Mac's process for assessing capital adequacy, including:
(A) A discussion of how Farmer Mac will, under expected and stressed conditions, maintain capital commensurate with its risks, maintain capital above the minimum core capital and regulatory capital ratios and above the Tier 1 ratio set in accordance with a well-articulated risk tolerance policy established by the board of directors;
(B) A discussion of how Farmer Mac will, under expected and stressed conditions, maintain sufficient capital to continue its operations by maintaining ready access to funding, meeting its obligations to creditors and other counterparties, and continuing to serve its statutory purposes; and
(C) A discussion of the results of the risk-based stress test required by section 8.32 of the Act and the stress tests required by this section, as well as any other stress test required by law or regulation, and an explanation of how the capital plan takes these results into account.
(iii) Farmer Mac's capital policy; and
(iv) A discussion of any expected changes to Farmer Mac's business plan that are likely to have a material impact on the Corporation's capital adequacy or liquidity.
(d)
(i) The comprehensiveness of the capital plan, including the extent to which the analysis underlying the capital plan captures and addresses risks stemming from activities across Farmer Mac's business lines and operations;
(ii) The reasonableness of Farmer Mac's assumptions and analysis underlying the capital plan and its methodologies for reviewing the robustness of its capital adequacy process; and
(iii) Farmer Mac's ability to maintain capital above the minimum core capital and regulatory capital ratios and above a Tier 1 ratio set in accordance with a risk tolerance policy established by the board of directors on a pro forma basis under expected and stressful conditions throughout the planning horizon, including but not limited to any stressed scenarios required under paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
(iv) All supervisory information about Farmer Mac and its subsidiaries;
(v) Farmer Mac's regulatory and financial reports, as well as supporting data that would allow for an analysis of its loss, revenue, and projections;
(vi) As applicable, OSMO's own pro forma estimates of Farmer Mac's potential losses, revenues, and resulting capital adequacy measurements under expected and stressful conditions, including but not limited to any stressed scenarios required under paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the results of any other stress tests conducted by Farmer Mac or OSMO; and
(vii) Other information requested or required by OSMO, as well as any other information relevant to Farmer Mac's capital adequacy.
(e)
(2) Upon a request by OSMO, Farmer Mac must provide OSMO with sufficient information regarding its planning assumptions, stress test strategies and results and any other relevant qualitative or quantitative information requested by OSMO to facilitate review of Farmer Mac's capital plan under this section.
(3) OSMO may require Farmer Mac to revise and re-submit its capital plan.
(f)
(a) Farmer Mac must provide OSMO with notice 15 calendar days prior to a board consideration of a declaration of a capital distribution or any material changes in capital distributions policies.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), notice under paragraph (a) of this section is not required with respect to capital distributions set forth (i.e., specifically scheduled as to amount and timing along with a discussion of the planned distribution) in the capital plan or a regular periodic payment of dividends on common stock and preferred stock when there is no change in the amount of payment per share from the previous period.
(c) In the event that OSMO determines a capital plan has not adequately taken into account OSMO's assessment as required under § 652.61(f), the exception described in paragraph (b) of this section shall not apply, and Farmer Mac must provide notification of any and all capital distributions as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), Department of the Treasury.
Interim rule.
The mission of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) is to increase economic opportunity and promote community development investments for underserved populations in distressed communities in the United States. Its long-term vision is to economically empower America's underserved and distressed communities. The purpose of the Community Development Financial Institutions Program (CDFI Program) is to promote economic revitalization and community development through investment in and assistance to Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). Under the CDFI Program, the CDFI Fund provides financial assistance in the form of grants, loans, equity investments and deposits to CDFIs selected through a merit-based application process. The CDFI Fund provides financial assistance to CDFIs to enhance their ability to make loans and investments, and to provide related services for the benefit of designated investment areas, targeted populations, or both. In addition, through the CDFI Program, the CDFI Fund provides technical assistance grants to CDFIs and entities that propose to become CDFIs, for the purpose of increasing their capacity to serve their target markets.
The CDFI Fund is amending its regulations regarding the financial reporting requirements for non-profit organizations. The regulatory change requires CDFI Program awardees that are non-profit organizations to provide audited financial statements within 180 days after the end of the awardee's fiscal year end. This regulatory action conforms to the financial reporting requirements for non-profit awardees to the statutory provisions governing the CDFI Program.
All comments concerning this interim rule should be addressed to the CDFI Program Manager, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20220; by email to; by email to
All properly submitted comments will be available for inspection and downloading at
Adam Martinez, Program Manager, CDFI Program, by mail to the CDFI Fund, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20220; by email to
The CDFI Fund was established as a wholly owned government corporation by the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4701
The CDFI Fund's programs are designed to facilitate the flow of lending and investment capital to distressed communities and to individuals who have been unable to take full advantage of the financial services industry. Access to credit, investment capital, and financial services are essential ingredients for creating and retaining jobs, developing affordable housing,
The CDFI Fund was established to promote economic revitalization and community development through, among other things, investment in and assistance to CDFIs, which specialize in serving underserved markets and the people who live there. CDFIs—while highly effective—are typically small in scale and often have difficulty raising the capital needed to meet the demands for their products and services. Through the CDFI Program, the CDFI Fund provides CDFIs with financial assistance in the form of grants, loans, equity investments, and deposits in order to enhance their ability to make loans and investments, and provide services for the benefit of designated investment areas, targeted populations or both. Additionally, many CDFIs are in formation or in the early stages of development in many markets underserved by traditional financial institutions, including rural and Native American communities. The CDFI Program assists such entities—as well as established CDFIs—by providing grants through which they may acquire technical assistance to build their capacity to serve their target markets. Applicants participate in the CDFI Program through a merit-based qualitative application and selection process in which the CDFI Fund makes funding decisions based on pre-established evaluation criteria. An entity generally receives financial assistance monies from the CDFI Fund only after being certified as a CDFI and entering into an assistance agreement with the CDFI Fund. These assistance agreements include performance goals, matching funds requirements and reporting requirements.
On December 13, 2005, the CDFI Fund published in the
Part 1805 of the CDFI Fund regulations (12 CFR part 1805) sets forth the requirements under the Act for Data Collection and Reporting by CDFI Program awardees. Section 1805.804(e)(1) (12 CFR 1805.804(e)(1)) states that all non-profit organizations must submit to the CDFI Fund financial statements that have been reviewed by an independent certified public accountant in accordance with standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, no later than 180 days after the end of the Awardee's fiscal year; and that audited financial statements can be provided by the due date in lieu of reviewed statements, if available.
The Act requires the CDFI Fund to ensure that each CDFI Program awardee (other than an insured CDFI or depository institution holding company) submit, not less than once during each 18-month period, a statement of financial condition audited by an independent certified public accountant as part of the awardee's annual report to the CDFI Fund required by section 4714(e)(1) of the Act.
The CDFI Program Regulations currently permit non-profit CDFI awardees to submit financial statements that are reviewed but not audited by independent certified public accounts as part of their annual report to the CDFI Fund. This was done in part out of a recognition of the cost and time constraints non-profit awardees face in obtaining audited financial statements within the allotted 180-day period following the end of their fiscal year. The CDFI Fund is issuing this interim rule to conform the regulatory reporting requirements to the requirements of the Act.
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.
The collections of information contained in this interim rule have been previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and assigned OMB Control Numbers 1559–0006, 1559–0021, and 1559–0022. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. This document restates the collections of information without substantive change.
This interim rule has been reviewed in accordance with 12 CFR part 1815. The CDFI Fund's Environmental Regulations under the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA) require that the CDFI Fund adequately consider the cumulative impact proposed activities have upon the human environment. It is the determination of the CDFI Fund that the interim rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the NEPA and the CDFI Fund Environmental Quality Regulations, 12 CFR part 1815, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
Because this interim rule relates to loans and grants, notice and public procedure and a delayed effective date are not required pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
Community Development Financial Institutions Program—21.020.
Community development, Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the CDFI Fund is amending 12 CFR part 1805 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4703, 4703 note, 4710, 4717; and 31 U.S.C. 321.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) All non-profit organizations (excluding Insured CDFIs and State-Insured Credit Unions) must submit to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special condition; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Learjet Model 45 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the architecture and connectivity capabilities of the airplanes' computer systems and networks. Connectivity to, or access by, external systems and networks may result in security vulnerabilities to the airplanes' systems. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is October 31, 2013. We must receive your comments by December 16, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2013–0920 using any of the following methods:
•
Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1298; facsimile 425–227–1149.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. The FAA has also determined that notice of these special conditions is unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On April 21, 2010, Learjet applied for both a change to Type Certificate No. T00008WI and for a supplemental type certificate (STC) for an installation of an avionics upgrade in the Learjet Model 45 series airplanes. The Model 45 series airplanes are swept-wing aircraft equipped with two Honeywell TFE731–40BR turbojet engines, weighing 13,890 pounds empty and capable of carrying up to nine passengers and two crew members.
The proposed Learjet Model 45 avionics architecture is new and novel for commercial transport airplanes by allowing connection to airplane electronic systems and networks, and access from aircraft external sources (e.g., wireless devices, Internet connectivity) to the previously isolated airplane electronic assets.
Learjet's proposed design is considered by the FAA to be an architecture which introduces potential security risks and vulnerabilities not addressed in current regulations and aircraft-level or system-level safety assessment methods. Consequently, these special conditions address security and safety issues arising from the use of this type of architecture, and
Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Learjet must show that the Model 45 series meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–128.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 45 series because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the proposed special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and proposed special conditions, the Learjet Model 45 series airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Learjet Model 45 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Digital systems architecture composed of several connected networks. The proposed architecture and network configuration may be used for, or interfaced with, a diverse set of functions, including:
1. Flight-safety related control, communication, display, monitoring, and navigation systems (aircraft control functions);
2. Operator business and administrative support (operator information services);
3. Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger entertainment services); and,
4. The capability to allow access to or by systems external to the airplane.
The architecture and network configuration in the Learjet Model 45 series airplanes may allow increased connectivity to, or access by, external airplane sources, airline operations, and maintenance systems to the aircraft control functions and airline information services. The aircraft control functions and airline information services perform functions required for the safe operation and maintenance of the airplane. Previously these functions and services had very limited connectivity with external sources. The architecture and network configuration may allow the exploitation of network security vulnerabilities resulting in intentional or unintentional destruction, disruption, degradation, or exploitation of data, systems, and networks critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane. The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of airplane system architectures. Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane systems, data buses, and servers. Therefore, these special conditions are issued to ensure that the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems is not compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections.
For the reasons discussed above, these special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Learjet Model 45 series airplanes. Should Learjet apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Learjet Model 45 series airplanes.
1. The applicant must ensure airplane electronic system security protection from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic system security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.
3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system security safeguards.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special condition; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Learjet Model 45 series airplanes. These airplanes will have novel or unusual design features associated with connectivity of the passenger service computer systems to the airplane critical systems and data networks. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is October 31, 2013. We must receive your comments by December 16, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2013–0919 using any of the following methods:
•
Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1298; facsimile 425–227–1149.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On April 21, 2010, Learjet applied for both a change to Type Certificate No. T00008WI and for a supplemental type certificate (STC) change in the digital systems architecture in the Learjet Model 45 series airplanes. The Learjet Model No. 45 series airplanes are a swept-wing aircraft equipped with two Honeywell TFE731–40BR turbojet engines, weighing 13,890 pounds empty and capable of carrying up to nine passengers plus two crew members.
The proposed Learjet Model 45 architecture is new and novel for commercial transport airplanes by allowing connection to previously isolated data networks connected to systems that perform functions required for the safe operation of the airplane. This proposed data network and design integration may result in security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane. The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate this type of system architecture or electronic access to aircraft systems. Furthermore, regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be caused by unauthorized access to aircraft data buses and servers. The intent of these special conditions is to ensure that security, integrity, and availability of aircraft systems are not compromised by certain wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane data busses and networks. A separate Learjet Model 45 project special condition addresses aircraft electronic system security protection from unauthorized external access.
Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Learjet must show that the Model 45 series meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–128.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 45 series because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the proposed special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and proposed special conditions, the Learjet Model 45 series airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Learjet Model 45 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The proposed architecture and network configuration may be used for, or interfaced with, a diverse set of functions, including:
1. Flight-safety related control, communication, and navigation systems (aircraft control domain);
2. Operator business and administrative support (operator information domain); and
3. Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger entertainment domain).
In addition, the operating systems (OS) for current aircraft systems are usually and historically proprietary. Therefore, they are not as susceptible to corruption from worms, viruses, and other malicious actions as more widely used commercial operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows NT, because access to the design details of these proprietary OS is limited to the system developer and aircraft integrator. Some systems installed on the Learjet Model 45 series airplanes will use operating systems that are widely used and commercially available from third party software suppliers. The security vulnerabilities of these operating systems may be more widely known than proprietary operating systems currently used by avionics manufacturers.
The integrated network configurations in the Learjet Model 45 series airplanes may allow increased connectivity with external network sources and will have more interconnected networks and systems, such as passenger entertainment and information services than previous airplane models. This may allow the exploitation of network security vulnerabilities and increased risks potentially resulting in unsafe conditions for the airplanes and occupants. This potential exploitation of security vulnerabilities may result in intentional or unintentional destruction, disruption, degradation, or exploitation of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane. The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of system architectures. Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks and servers. Therefore, these special conditions are being issued to ensure that the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems is not compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane systems and the passenger entertainment services.
For the reasons discussed above, these special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Learjet Model 45 series airplanes. Should Learjet apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Learjet Model 45 series airplanes.
1. The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation from, or airplane electronic system security protection against, access by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required for safe flight and operations.
2. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system security safeguards.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes. These airplanes will have novel or unusual features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These design features include systems that, directly or as a result of
The effective date of these special conditions is October 31, 2013. We must receive your comments by December 16, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2013–0820 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Freisthler, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1119; facsimile 425–227–1232.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Inc. applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes. The Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with a pressurized cabin, and they share an identical supplier base and significant common design elements. The fuselage is aluminum alloy material, blended double-bubble design, sized for nominal 5-abreast seating. Each airplane's powerplant includes two under-wing Pratt and Whitney PW1524G ultra high-bypass, geared turbofan engines. Flight controls are fly-by-wire systems with two passive/uncoupled side sticks. Avionics include five landscape primary cockpit displays. The dimensions of the airplanes encompass a wingspan of 115 feet; a height of 37.75 feet; and a length of 114.75 feet for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 127 feet for the Model BD–500–1A11. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 125 for the Model BD–500–1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD–500–1A11. Maximum takeoff thrust is 21,000 pounds for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 23,300 pounds for the Model BD–500–1A11. The range is 3,394 miles (5,463 kilometres) for both models of airplanes. The maximum operating altitude is 41,000 feet for both models of airplanes.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–129 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Systems that affect the airplane's structural performance, either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction. That is, the airplane's systems affect how it responds in maneuver and gust conditions, and thereby affect its structural capability. These systems may also affect the aeroelastic stability of the airplane. Such systems include flight control systems, autopilots, stability augmentation systems, load alleviation systems, and fuel management systems. These systems represent novel and unusual features when compared to the
The flight control system of the Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes will consist of a full authority fly-by-wire system with normal and direct modes of operation. Special conditions have been applied on past airplane programs, with similar systems, in order to require consideration of the effects of those systems on structures. The regulatory authorities and industry developed standardized criteria in the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) forum based on the criteria defined in Advisory Circular 25.672, dated November 11, 1983. The ARAC recommendations have been incorporated in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Certification Specifications (CS) 25.302 and CS–25 Appendix K. FAA rulemaking on this subject is not complete, thus the need for special conditions.
These special conditions are similar to those previously applied to other airplane models and to EASA CS 25.302. Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) plans to apply the CS 25.302 version of the special conditions. The differences between FAA special conditions and the current CS 25.302, which the FAA regards as minor, are shown below.
(1) Both these special conditions and CS 25.302 specify the design load conditions to be considered. Paragraphs 2a(1) and 2b(2)(i) of these special conditions clarify that, in some cases, different load conditions are to be considered due to other special conditions or equivalent level of safety findings.
(2) Both these special conditions and CS 25.302 allow consideration of the probability of being in a dispatched configuration when assessing subsequent failures and potential “continuation of flight” loads (see paragraph 2d below). These special conditions, however, also allow using probability when assessing failures that induce loads at the “time of occurrence,” whereas CS 25.302 does not. The FAA provision is relieving. The FAA chooses to preserve these minor differences and go forward with this version of the special conditions.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two models of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Inc. Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes.
1.
a. For airplanes equipped with systems that affect structural performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 subparts C and D.
b. The following criteria must be used for showing compliance with these special conditions for airplanes equipped with flight control systems, autopilots, stability augmentation systems, load alleviation systems, flutter control systems, fuel management systems, and other systems that either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction affect structural performance. If these special conditions are used for other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the specific system.
c. The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural consequences of the system responses and performances and cannot be considered in isolation but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of the airplane. These criteria may in some instances duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These criteria are only applicable to structure whose failure could prevent continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements when operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode are not provided in these special conditions.
d. Depending upon the specific characteristics of the airplane, additional studies may be required that go beyond the criteria provided in these special conditions in order to demonstrate the capability of the airplanes to meet other realistic conditions such as alternative gust or maneuver descriptions for an airplane equipped with a load alleviation system.
e. The following definitions are applicable to these special conditions:
(1) Structural performance: Capability of the airplane to meet the structural requirements of 14 CFR part 25.
(2) Flight limitations: Limitations that can be applied to the airplane flight conditions following an in-flight occurrence and that are included in the flight manual (e.g., speed limitations and avoidance of severe weather conditions).
(3) Operational limitations: Limitations, including flight limitations, that can be applied to the airplane operating conditions before dispatch (e.g., fuel, payload and Master Minimum Equipment List limitations).
(4) Probabilistic terms: The probabilistic terms (probable, improbable, extremely improbable) used in these special conditions are the same as those used in § 25.1309.
(5) Failure condition: The term “failure condition” is the same as that used in § 25.1309. However, these special conditions apply only to system failure conditions that affect the structural performance of the airplane (e.g., system failure conditions that induce loads, change the response of the airplane to inputs such as gusts or pilot actions, or lower flutter margins).
2.
a. System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the following apply:
(1) Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in subpart C (or defined by special conditions or equivalent level of safety in lieu of those specified in subpart C), taking into account any special behavior of such a system or associated functions or any effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant nonlinearity (rate of displacement of control surface, thresholds, or any other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.
(2) The airplane must meet the strength requirements of part 25 (static strength, residual strength) using the specified factors to derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the airplane has design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit conditions.
(3) The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements of § 25.629.
b. System in the failure condition. For any system failure condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following apply:
(1) At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1-g level flight conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions, must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of failure and immediately after failure.
(i) For static strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for design. The factor of safety (FS) is defined in Figure 1.
(ii) For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in subparagraph 2b(1)(i). For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
(iii) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the speeds defined in § 25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that result in speeds beyond V
(iv) Failures of the system that result in forced structural vibrations (e.g., oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.
(2) For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane, in the system-failed state and considering any appropriate reconfiguration and flight limitations, the following apply:
(i) The loads derived from the following conditions (or defined by special conditions or equivalent level of safety in lieu of the following conditions) at speeds up to V
(A) The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in § 25.331 and in § 25.345.
(B) The limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in § 25.341 and in § 25.345.
(C) The limit rolling conditions specified in § 25.349 and the limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in § 25.367 and § 25.427(b) and (c).
(D) The limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in § 25.351.
(E) The limit ground loading conditions specified in §§ 25.473, 25.491, 25.493(d) and 25.503.
(ii) For static strength substantiation, each part of the structure must be able to withstand the loads in paragraph 2b(2)(i) of these special conditions multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety (FS) is defined in Figure 2.
(iii) For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph 2b(2)(ii) of these special conditions. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
(iv) If the loads induced by the failure condition have a significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance, then their effects must be taken into account.
(v) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a speed determined from Figure 3. Flutter clearance speeds V′ and V″ may be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the flight using the margins defined by § 25.629(b).
(vi) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to V′ in Figure 3 above, for any probable system failure condition combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by § 25.571(b).
(3) Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by other sections of 14 CFR part 25 regardless of calculated system reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be less than 10
c. Failure indications. For system failure detection and indication, the following apply:
(1) The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the level required by part 25 or significantly reduce the
(2) The existence of any failure condition, not extremely improbable, during flight that could significantly affect the structural capability of the airplane and for which the associated reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight limitations, must be signaled to the flight crew. For example, failure conditions that result in a factor of safety between the airplane strength and the loads of subpart C below 1.25, or flutter margins below V″, must be signaled to the crew during flight.
d. Dispatch with known failure conditions. If the airplane is to be dispatched in a known system failure condition that affects structural performance, or affects the reliability of the remaining system to maintain structural performance, then the provisions of these special conditions must be met, including the provisions of paragraph 2a for the dispatched condition, and paragraph 2b for subsequent failures. Expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing P
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta Model A109A, A109AII, and A109C helicopters with a certain third stage turbine wheel installed. This AD requires installing a placard on the instrument panel and revising the limitations section of the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM). This AD was prompted by several incidents of third stage engine turbine wheel failures, which were caused by excessive vibrations at certain engine speeds during steady-state operations. These actions are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Agusta Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15, 21019 Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39 0331 711133; fax 39 0331 711180; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
On June 20, 2013, at 78 FR 37162, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2009–0037–E, dated February 19, 2009, issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD No. 2009–0037–E to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model A109A, A109AII, and A109C helicopters with a Rolls Royce Corporation (RRC) engine Model 250–C20B or 250–C20R/1 having a third stage turbine wheel P/N 23065833 installed. EASA advises that following several third stage turbine wheel failures, the engine type
The EASA AD requires amending the RFMs and installing a placard as described in Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 109–129, dated February 16, 2009 (BT 109–129). The EASA AD also states to avoid steady-state operation in the 95% to 97% N2 range for more than 60 seconds, and requires the corrective actions of CEB A–1400 if that limitation is exceeded.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 37162, June 20, 2013).
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
Agusta has issued BT 109–129, which contains procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel below or near the engine and rotor RPM power turbine (N2) indicator and for inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual.
We estimate that this AD will affect 40 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Amending the RFM will require about 0.25 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of about $22 and a cost to U.S. operators of $880. Installing the decal will require about 0.2 work-hours, and required parts will cost about $5, for a cost per helicopter of $22 and a cost to U.S. operators of $880. Based on these estimates, the total cost of this AD will be $44 per helicopter and $1,760 for the U.S. operator fleet.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Agusta Model A109A, A109AII, and A109C helicopters with a third stage turbine wheel, part number 23065833, installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a third stage turbine vibration, which could result in turbine failure, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 30 days:
(1) For Model A109A helicopters, revise the Power Plant Limitations section, page 1–7, of the Model A109A Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) by inserting page 5 of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 109–129, dated February 16, 2009 (BT 109–129).
(2) For Model A109AII helicopters, revise the Power Plant Limitations section, page 1–6, of the Model A109AII RFM by inserting page 6 of BT 109–129.
(3) For Model A109C helicopters, revise the Power Plant and Transmission Limitations section, page 1–8, of the Model A109C RFM by inserting page 7 of BT 109–129.
(4) Install a placard on the instrument panel adjacent to the Engine and Rotor RPM Power Turbine (N2) Indicator that states: MIN. CONT. 97% N
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under
(1) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2009–0037–E, dated February 19, 2009. You may view the EASA AD on the internet in the AD Docket at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7250: Turbine Section.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 109–129, dated February 16, 2009.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Agusta service information identified in this AD, contact Agusta Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15, 21019 Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39–0331–711133; fax 39 0331 711180; or at
(4) You may review this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
(5) You may also view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97–19–10 for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation-manufactured Model S–64E helicopters (type certificate currently held by Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated (Erickson)). AD 97–19–10 required inspecting and reworking the main gearbox (MGB) assembly second stage lower planetary plate (plate). This action establishes or reduces the life limits for certain flight-critical components, removes from service various parts, requires repetitive inspections and other corrective actions, and requires replacing any cracked part discovered during an inspection. This AD is prompted by further analysis performed by the current type certificate holder and the service history of certain parts. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent a crack in a flight critical component, failure of a critical part, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, ATTN: Chris Erickson, Director of Regulatory Compliance, 3100 Willow Springs Rd, P.O. Box 3247, Central Point, OR 97502, telephone (541) 664–5544, fax (541) 664–2312, email address
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Michael Kohner, Aerospace Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 222–5170; email
On May 28, 2013, at 78 FR 31863, the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 31863, May 28, 2013).
We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
Erickson Service Bulletin (SB) No. 64B General-1, Revision 19, dated September 15, 2010 (SB 64B General-1), specifies the retirement life for certain parts and assemblies as well as noting other maintenance actions. This and the previous revisions of SB 64B General-1 contain reduced or new life limits for certain parts, parts which should be removed from service, other maintenance actions, and various other provisions for certain parts. We have also reviewed Erickson SB No. 64B10–3, Revision D, dated October 15, 2007, which provides ultrasonic inspection procedures for the Main Rotor (M/R) hub horizontal hinge pins.
This AD contains only those parts for the Model S–64E helicopters whose life limit has either been reduced or added for an existing P/N, whereas SB 64B General-1 also contains parts whose life limits have been extended. As a result, this proposed AD does not include all of the parts or P/Ns that are listed in SB 64B General-1.
We estimate that this AD will affect 13 helicopters of U.S. registry, and the proposed actions will take the following number of estimated work hours to accomplish:
• 26 work hours (2 work hours per helicopter) for the fleet to review the helicopter records or to remove a part to determine if an affected part is installed;
• 845 work hours (65 work hours per helicopter) for the fleet to replace the parts or assemblies on or before reaching the retirement lives stated in Table 1 of the AD, assuming an annual usage of 600 hours TIS;
• 287 work hours per helicopter to replace all the parts or assemblies listed in Table 2 of the AD;
• 130 work hours (10 work hours per helicopter) for the fleet to inspect the M/R servo housing assemblies for an oil leak, assuming each inspection would take approximately 0.25 work hour per helicopter and would be accomplished 40 times annually;
• Approximately 293 work hours (22.5 work hours per helicopter) for the fleet to UT inspect each M/R hub horizontal hinge pin, assuming that each inspection would take 7.5 work hours per helicopter and would be accomplished 3 times annually;
• 288 work hours (48 work hours per helicopter) to perform an MPI of each main gearbox second stage lower planetary plate and second stage planetary plate assembly assuming 6 helicopters would be inspected annually;
• 192 work hours (32 work hours per helicopter) to perform an MPI of each M/R shaft and M/R shaft assembly, assuming 6 helicopters would be inspected annually, and
• 96 work hours (32 work hours per helicopter) to perform an FPI of each M/R tandem servo housing assembly, assuming 3 helicopters would be inspected annually.
Therefore, we estimate that it will take approximately 2,157 work hours to accomplish the proposed actions at a cost of $183,345, using an average labor rate $85 per work hour. Replacement parts will cost approximately:
• $5,363,449 ($412,573 per helicopter) to replace the parts or assemblies on the entire fleet on or before reaching the proposed retirement lives, assuming parts for 13 helicopters would require replacement; and
• $2,594,400 per helicopter to replace the parts or assemblies that are listed in Table 2 of the AD.
Using these assumptions, the estimated total cost for the required parts will be approximately $7,957,849. Based on these estimated amounts using these assumptions, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on the U.S. operators will be $8,141,194.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Sikorsky Model CH–54A helicopters, now under the Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated (Erickson) Model S–64E type certificate, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as fatigue cracking in a flight critical component, failure of the component, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD supersedes AD 97–19–10, Amendment 39–10130 (62 FR 47933, September 12, 1997).
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Before further flight, for each part listed in Table 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD:
(i) Remove any part that has reached or exceeded its newly established or revised retirement life.
(ii) Record the newly established or revised retirement life for each part on the component history card or equivalent record.
(iii) Make pen and ink changes or insert a copy of this AD into the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual to establish or revise the retirement life for each part that is listed in Table 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD.
(2) Before further flight, remove from service any part with a P/N listed in Table 2 to Paragraph (f) of this AD, regardless of the part's TIS. The part numbers listed in Table 2 to paragraph (f)(2) of this AD are not eligible for installation on any helicopter.
(3) Within 20 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20 hours TIS, visually inspect each M/R servo and control arm assembly, P/N S1565–20421–10, –11, –041, or –043, and determine if there is any oil leaking from the M/R tandem servo housing assembly (servo housing), P/N S1565–20252–2. If there is any oil leaking from the servo housing, before further flight, replace the M/R servo and control arm assembly.
(4) Within 20 hours TIS or before reaching 1,120 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, ultrasonic (UT) inspect each M/R hub horizontal hinge pin (hinge pin), P/N S1510–23099–1 or P/N S1510–23099–001, for a crack in accordance with the
(5) Within 150 hours TIS or before reaching 1,450 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, perform a fluorescent-magnetic particle inspection (MPI) of each second stage planetary plate assembly, P/N 6435–20231–016, for a crack.
(6) Within 150 hours TIS or before reaching 1,450 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 650 hours TIS, perform an MPI of each M/R shaft, P/N 6435–20078–104, for a crack, paying particular attention to the lower spline area.
(7) Within 150 hours TIS or before reaching 1,450 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,450 hours TIS, perform an MPI of each M/R shaft, P/N 6435–20078–105, for a crack, paying particular attention to the lower spline area.
(8) Within 150 hours TIS or before reaching 3,375 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,375 hours TIS, perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection of each housing lug on each servo housing, P/N S1565–20252–2, for a crack.
(9) At each overhaul of the main gearbox assembly, P/N 6435–20400–053, –054, –058, –060, –062, –063, –064, –065, or –066, perform an MPI of the entire shaft of each M/R shaft assembly, P/N 6435–20078–014, –015, or –016, for a crack, paying particular attention to the rotating swashplate spherical bearing ball travel area, which is located approximately ten inches above the upper roller bearing journal shoulder.
(10) If there is a crack in any part, before further flight, replace the cracked part.
(11) At each overhaul of the damper assembly, P/N 6410–26200–042, replace the following parts with airworthy parts that have zero (0) hours TIS:
(i) All Air Force-Navy Aeronautical Standard (AN), Aerospace Standard (AS), Military Standard (MS), and National Aerospace Standard (NAS) nuts, bolts, washers, and packings, except packing, P/N MS28775–011, installed on stud, P/N SHF111–11SN–12A;
(ii) Lock washer, P/N SS5073–2;
(iii) Nut, P/N SS5081–05;
(iv) Felt seal, P/N S1510–26017;
(v) Retaining ring, P/N UR106L; and
(vi) Nut, P/N 6410–26214–101.
(1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Michael Kohner, Aerospace Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 222–5170; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
Erickson Service Bulletin No. 64B General–1, Revision 19, dated September 15, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, ATTN: Chris Erickson, Director of Regulatory Compliance, 3100 Willow Springs Rd., P.O. Box 3247, Central Point, OR 97502, telephone (541) 664–5544, fax (541) 664–2312, email address
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200: Main Rotor System; 6300: Main Rotor Drive System; 6410: Tail Rotor Blades; 6500: Tail Rotor Drive System.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Erickson Service Bulletin No. 64B10–3, Revision D, dated October 15, 2007.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Erickson service information identified in this AD, contact Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, ATTN: Chris Erickson, Director of Regulatory Compliance, 3100 Willow Springs Rd, P.O. Box 3247, Central Point, OR 97502, telephone (541) 664–5544, fax (541) 664–2312, email address
(4) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
(5) You may also view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 94–13–06 for certain The Boeing Company Model 747 series airplanes. AD 94–13–06 required repetitive detailed inspections to detect cracking in certain fuselage upper deck tension ties, repair or modification of any cracked tension ties, and repetitive inspections of repaired and modified tension ties and repair or modification if necessary. AD 94–13–06 also provided for optional terminating action for the repetitive detailed inspections of tension ties that had not been repaired or modified. This new AD retains the repetitive inspections, mandates the previously optional terminating modification, and adds, for tension ties that have not been repaired or modified, repetitive inspections that must be done concurrently with the existing repetitive inspections. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the upper deck tension ties of the fuselage are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent widespread fatigue damage of certain fuselage upper deck tension ties, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6428; fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 94–13–06, Amendment 39–8946 (59 FR 32879, June 27, 1994). AD 94–13–06 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the NPRM (78 FR 43839, July 22, 2013).
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.
We estimate that this AD affects 113 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
This AD supersedes AD 94–13–06, Amendment 39–8946 (59 FR 32879, June 27, 1994).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747–100, 747–200B, and 747–200F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the upper deck tension ties of the fuselage are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent widespread fatigue damage of certain fuselage upper deck tension ties, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (k)(3) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in Tables 1 and 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012: Do detailed and surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracks in the tension ties, as applicable, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. The effective date of AD 94–13–06, Amendment 39–8946 (59 FR 32879, June 27, 1994) is July 27, 1994. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the detailed and HFEC inspections thereafter at the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012, except as specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Repair of a tension tie, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, terminates the requirements of this paragraph for that tension tie only.
Except as provided by paragraph (k)(3) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012: Modify the tension ties, including doing an open-hole HFEC inspection for cracks before enlarging the hole, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012. Modification of the tension ties terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. If any cracking is found, before further flight, do the repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
At the applicable time specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012: Do a detailed inspection of all repaired and modified tension ties, and do all applicable corrective actions, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD if that modification was done before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2371, dated July 29, 1993; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2371, Revision 1, dated April 27, 1995; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD. Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2371, dated July 29, 1993, was incorporated by reference in AD 94–13–06, Amendment 39–8946 (59 FR 32879, June 27, 1994).
(1) Where Row 2 of Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012, specifies repeating a “detailed” inspection, “as given in Part 4” of this service information, the repetitive inspections required by this AD are “HFEC” inspections, done in accordance with Part 4 and Figure 8 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions, or does not include repair instructions for a crack found in an area other than the aft tension tie area: Before further flight, do the repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012, specifies a compliance time of “after the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 94–13–06, Amendment 39–8946 (59 FR 32879, June 27, 1994), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6428; fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
(2) Service information in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (Eurocopter) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters. This AD requires inspecting each linear transducer bearing (bearing) for freedom of movement and replacing the bearing if there is binding or rough turning or if there is chafing or damage on the lower side of the floor. Also, this AD requires modifying and re-identifying a certain rod. This AD was prompted by an incident involving limited control of a tail rotor because of the binding of a bearing. The actions of this AD are intended to detect and replace each bearing subject to binding, which could lead to subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052, telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323, fax (972) 641–3775, or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
On May 23, 2013, at 78 FR 30793, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2006–0318 R1, dated October 27, 2006, issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for all Eurocopter Model EC 135 helicopters. EASA advises of an incident in which impaired control of an EC 135 tail rotor was detected. EASA states that according to examinations, the bearing of the linear transducer was subject to binding, which limited the control range.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 30793, May 23, 2013).
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
This AD does not refer to the compliance date of October 31, 2006, because that date has passed; instead we require compliance within 100 hours time-service (TIS). This AD does not require contacting Eurocopter customer support. This AD requires modifying each rod within 100 hours TIS, rather than within 800 hours TIS as specified in the EASA AD.
Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin EC135–67A–012, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2006 (ASB), which specifies inspecting the bearing of the linear transducer for freedom of movement and the lower side of the floor for chafing or damage. If there is binding, the ASB specifies replacing the bearing. If there is chafing or damage on the floor, the ASB specifies replacing the bearing and repairing the floor. The ASB also specifies modifying and reidentifying a certain rod. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued EASA AD 2006–0318 R1, dated October 27, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
We estimate that this AD will affect 214 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD: It will take about 10 work-hours to inspect the bearing for freedom of movement at an average labor rate of
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters, with bearing, part number (P/N) LN9367GE6N2; rod, P/N L671M5040205; lever, P/N L671M5040101; and floor, P/N L533M1014101, L533M1014102, L533M1014103, L533M1014104, L533M1014105 or L533M1014106, installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as limited control of a tail rotor because of the binding of a bearing. This condition could result in subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 hours TIS, inspect each bearing for freedom of movement by turning and tilting the bearing as depicted in Figure 2 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC135–67A–012, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2006 (ASB). During any inspection:
(i) If there is binding or rough turning, before further flight, replace the bearing with an airworthy bearing.
(ii) If there is chafing on the lower side of the floor that does not extend through the panel outer layer, before further flight, replace the bearing with an airworthy bearing.
(iii) If there is damage on the lower side of the floor in the area of the assembly opening that extends through the panel outer layer (revealing an open honeycomb cell or layer), before further flight, replace the bearing with an airworthy bearing and repair the floor.
(2) After performing the actions in (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD, before further flight, install a Teflon strip and identify the floor by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.E.(1) through 3.E.(4), of the ASB.
(3) Within 100 hours TIS, modify and re-identify the rod as depicted in Figure 1 of the ASB and by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.H.(1) through 3.H.(3)(f), of the ASB.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency AD No. 2006–0318 R1, dated October 27, 2006, which you may view on the internet at
The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is 6720: Tail Rotor Control System.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC135–67A–012, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2006.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Eurocopter service information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052, telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323, fax (972) 641–3775, or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747–400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fasteners missing on an airplane undergoing a passenger-to-freighter conversion. This AD requires doing a general visual inspection of the station 1920 splice clip for correct fastener installation, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing or incorrect fasteners, which can lead to cracking and loss of load carrying capacity, resulting in a possible decompression event.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6432; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. The Boeing Company supports the NPRM (78 FR 46540, August 1, 2013).
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46540, August 1, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46540, August 1, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747–400 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2844, Revision 1, dated July 30, 2012.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of fasteners missing on an airplane undergoing a passenger-to-freighter conversion. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing or incorrect fasteners, which can lead to cracking and loss of load carrying capacity, resulting in a possible decompression event.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2844, Revision 1, dated July 30, 2012: Do a general visual inspection for correct installation of the station 1920 splice clip common to the auxiliary sill web and the tie clip, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2844, Revision 1, dated July 30, 2012, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2844, Revision 1, dated July 30, 2012, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of the service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2844, Revision 1, dated July 30, 2012, specifies contacting Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2844, dated September 15, 2011, except the detailed inspection for cracking of the auxiliary sill outer chord tee and attached parts and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions must be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2844, Revision 1, dated July 30, 2012, at the times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2844, dated September 15, 2011, is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6432; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified in paragraphs (i)(3) and (i)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2844, Revision 1, dated July 30, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that certain special washers used in the bearing installation of the retraction jack anchorage fitting in the main landing gear (MLG) were incorrectly manufactured. This AD requires an inspection of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) bearing assemblies of the MLG retraction jack anchorage fitting to verify that the special washer is seated correctly, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct installation of incorrectly manufactured special washers, which could lead to a local stress concentration resulting in possible reduction of the fatigue life of the jack fitting, and consequent reduction of the structural integrity of the affected MLG.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
You may examine the AD on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1405; fax (425) 227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0223, dated October 23, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Airbus identified a batch of special washers, Part Number (P/N) D5725260120000 and P/N D5725664320000, which were incorrectly manufactured and delivered as spares from the supplier between October 2006 and January 2010. As a result of these manufacturing defects, the affected washers differ geometrically from the design specifications. The results of further analyses on Airbus A318, A319, A320 and A321 aeroplanes demonstrate that the affected washers could be seated incorrectly when installed on aeroplanes, which could affect the main landing gear (MLG) retraction jack anchorage fitting bearing installation.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a local stress concentration which may reduce the fatigue life of the jack fitting, possibly reducing the structural integrity of the affected MLG.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time detailed visual inspection of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) MLG retraction jack anchorage fitting bearing assemblies to verify that the special washer is seated correctly and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable [related investigative action and] corrective actions.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter, Jeremy Schreck, supported the NPRM (78 FR 39190, July 1, 2013).
We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 39190, July 1, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 39190, July 1, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the initial inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide part cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes listed in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model A318–111, –112, –121, and –122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319–111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320–111, –211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a determination that certain special washers used in retraction jack anchorage fitting bearing installation in the main landing gear (MLG) were incorrectly manufactured. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct installation of incorrectly manufactured special washers, which could lead to a local stress concentration resulting in possible reduction of the fatigue life of the jack fitting, and consequent reduction of the structural integrity of the affected MLG.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 21,300 flight cycles after August 1, 2006, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) bearing assemblies of the
The affected special washers having part number (P/N) D5725260120000 and P/N D5725664320000 were manufactured between October 2006 and January 2010.
If any special washer is found incorrectly seated during the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1169, Revision 01, dated September 18, 2012, except as specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 39730 or Airbus Modification 150311 has been embodied in production, or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1157 has been embodied in service, do not have to be inspected as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, unless a special washer having P/N D5725260120000 or P/N D5725664320000 has been installed since the airplane's first flight, or since modification as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1157, as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination if the part numbers of the special washers and modification status can be conclusively determined from that review.
(2) Bearing assemblies for the MLG retraction jack anchorage fitting on which no special washer replacement has been accomplished after August 1, 2006; and bearing assemblies for the MLG retraction jack anchorage fitting on which a special washer replacement has been accomplished as specified in Task 57–26–13–400–001–A, Installation of the Bearing Assembly of the Forward Pintle Pin; Task 57–26–13–400–002–A, Installation of the Bearing Assembly of the MLG Actuator Attachment; and Task 57–26–13–400–004–A Installation of the Bearing Seals of the MLG Actuator Bearing Assembly; of Subject 57–26–13, Attachment—Main Landing Gear, of Chapter 57, Wings, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Revision 50, dated November 1, 2012; do not have to be inspected as required by paragraph (g) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination if the status can be conclusively determined from that review.
(3) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1169, Revision 01, dated September 18, 2012, specifies to contact Airbus and apply corrective action defined by Airbus: Before further flight, repair the jack anchorage fitting using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a special washer having P/N D5725260120000 or P/N D5725664320000, unless it is installed in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1169, Revision 01, dated September 18, 2012; or in accordance with the instructions specified in the tasks identified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Task 57–26–13–400–001–A, Installation of the Bearing Assembly of the Forward Pintle Pin, in Subject 57–26–13, Attachment—Main Landing Gear, of Chapter 57, Wings, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Revision 50, dated November 1, 2012.
(2) Airbus Task 57–26–13–400–002–A, Installation of the Bearing Assembly of the MLG Actuator Attachment, in Subject 57–26–13, Attachment—Main Landing Gear, of Chapter 57, Wings, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM, Revision 50, dated November 1, 2012.
(3) Airbus Task 57–26–13–400–004–A Installation of the Bearing Seals of the MLG Actuator Bearing Assembly, in Subject 57–26–13, Attachment—Main Landing Gear, of Chapter 57, Wings, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM, Revision 50, dated November 1, 2012.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1169, dated January 10, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012–0223, dated October 23, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1169, Revision 01, dated September 18, 2012.
(ii) Airbus Task 57–26–13–400–001–A, Installation of the Bearing Assembly of the Forward Pintle Pin in Subject 57–26–13, of Chapter 57, Wings, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 50, dated November 1, 2012.
(iii) Airbus Task 57–26–13–400–002–A, Installation of the Bearing Assembly of the MLG Actuator Attachment in Subject 57–26–13, of Chapter 57, Wings, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 50, dated November 1, 2012.
(iv) Airbus Task 57–26–13–400–004–A, Installation of the Bearing Seals of the MLG Actuator Bearing Assembly in Subject 57–26–13, of Chapter 57, Wings, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 50, dated November 1, 2012.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–102, –103, and –106 airplanes; and Model DHC–8–200, –300, and –400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of excessive wear found in the clevis (bolt) hole where the rod assembly attaches to the rudder/brake pedal bellcrank, due to prolonged fretting. This AD requires measuring the bellcrank clevis holes, inspecting for cracking of the bellcrank, and re-working the clevis holes with steel bushings, or replacing the bellcrank. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a worn or cracked clevis hole, which could cause failure of the bellcrank on one side, with subsequent asymmetric braking and consequent runway excursion.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; email
Luke Walker, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228–7363; fax (516) 794–5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the
There have been several in-service reports of excessive wear found in the bolt [clevis] hole where the rod assembly, Part Numbers (P/N) 82710795–001 or 82710024–003, is attached to the rudder/brake pedal bellcrank. An investigation revealed that the wear was attributed to prolonged fretting.
Failure of the bellcrank on one side could lead to asymmetric braking and may lead to runway excursion.
This [Canadian] directive mandates [measuring clevis holes for length, and, for certain bellcranks, doing a liquid penetrant inspection for cracking, and] the re-work [by installing steel bushings] or replacement of each bellcrank, P/N 82710022–001/–002, 82710029–001/–002, 82710813–001/–002 and 82710814–001/–002, found with a worn [or cracked] bolt hole.
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012. The NPRM (77 FR 75906, December 26, 2012) referred to Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, dated June 15, 2011, in paragraphs (h) and (i) of the NPRM. In this final rule, we have revised the service bulletin references in those paragraphs accordingly, and have added new paragraph (j) to this final rule to give credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, dated June 15, 2011 (and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly).
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received.
An anonymous commenter requested that the references to “new bellcrank” in the NPRM (77 FR 75906, December 26, 2012) be changed to allow operators to install “serviceable” bellcranks (new bellcranks or ones that have been modified according to the applicable service information), thus giving equal safety, yet providing more flexibility and less recordkeeping for operators.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons given. We have revised paragraphs (g)(2), (h)(2), (h)(3), (h)(4), (i)(2), (i)(3), and (i)(4) of this AD by specifying to replace the bellcrank with a new bellcrank “or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed.” We have also clarified paragraphs (h)(1) and (i)(1) of this final rule by specifying to replace the bellcrank “with a new or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed.”
The same anonymous commenter requested that we include an eddy current inspection option in this final rule to agree with parallel actions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
We agree with the commenter's request because Bombardier added that inspection option in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012. Accordingly, we have added the option in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this final rule.
The same anonymous commenter, in an incomplete request, stated that the replacement times in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (77 FR 75906, December 26, 2012) do not sufficiently remove the identified unsafe condition. From the truncated statement, we cannot infer what part of paragraph (h) the commenter requested that we change. We have made no change to this final rule in this regard.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 75906, December 26, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 75906, December 26, 2012).
We estimate that this AD will affect 178 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $75,650, or $425 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 16 work-hours and require parts costing up to $2,532, for a cost of $3,892 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. airplanes, certificated in any category, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model DHC–8–102, –103, –106, –201, –202, –301, –311, and –315 airplanes: Serial numbers 003 through 672 inclusive.
(2) Model DHC–8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes: Serial numbers 4003 through 4372 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of excessive wear found in the clevis (bolt) hole where the rod assembly attaches to the rudder/brake pedal bellcrank, due to prolonged fretting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a worn or cracked clevis hole, which could cause failure of the bellcrank on one side, with subsequent asymmetric braking and consequent runway excursion.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
For Model DHC–8–102, –103, –106, –201, –202, –301, –311, and –315 airplanes: Within 6,000 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect each bellcrank for cracking using liquid penetrant, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–27–111, dated June 15, 2011.
(1) If no cracking is found: Before further flight, rework the bellcrank, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–27–111, dated June 15, 2011.
(2) If any clevis hole is greater than 0.218 inch (measured edge-to-edge), or if any cracking is found: Before further flight, replace the bellcrank with a new bellcrank, or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–27–111, dated June 15, 2011.
For Model DHC–8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes that have accumulated less than or equal to 15,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, but not to exceed 15,600 total flight hours, measure the edge-to-edge length of the clevis holes of each bellcrank, and inspect each bellcrank for cracking using liquid penetrant or eddy current inspection method; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
(1) If no cracking is found, and the edge-to-edge length of all clevis holes is less than or equal to 0.218 inch: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, but not to exceed 15,600 total flight hours, rework the bellcrank, or replace the bellcrank with a new bellcrank or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
(2) If no cracking is found, and any clevis hole edge-to-edge length is greater than 0.218 inch, but is less than or equal to 0.248 inch: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the bellcrank with a new bellcrank, or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
(3) If no cracking is found, and any clevis hole edge-to-edge length is greater than 0.248 inch, but is less than or equal to 0.278 inch: Within 1,200 flight hours after doing the measurement/inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, replace the bellcrank with a new bellcrank, or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
(4) If any cracking is found, or if any clevis hole edge-to-edge length exceeds 0.278 inch: Before further flight, replace the bellcrank with a new bellcrank, or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
For Model DHC–8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes that have accumulated more than 15,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, measure the edge-to-edge length of the clevis holes of each bellcrank, and inspect each bellcrank for cracking using liquid penetrant or eddy current inspection method; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
(1) If no cracking is found, and the edge-to-edge length of all clevis holes is less than or equal to 0.218 inch: Within 1,200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, rework the bellcrank, or replace the bellcrank with a new bellcrank or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
(2) If no cracking is found, and any clevis hole edge-to-edge length is greater than 0.218, inch but is less than or equal to 0.248 inch: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the bellcrank with a new bellcrank, or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
(3) If no cracking is found, and any clevis hole edge-to-edge length is greater than 0.248 inch, but is less than or equal to 0.278 inch: Within 1,200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the bellcrank with a new bellcrank, or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
(4) If any cracking is found, or any clevis hole edge-to-edge length exceeds 0.278 inch: Before further flight, replace the bellcrank with a new bellcrank, or with a serviceable bellcrank with bushings having part number 82710297–101 installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, dated June 15, 2011.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2011–32, dated August 15, 2011, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–27–111, dated June 15, 2011.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–55, Revision A, dated February 22, 2012.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; email
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Model 206L–4 and 407 helicopters. This AD requires replacing or reworking certain aft bearing caps. This AD was
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, Texas 76101, telephone (817) 280–3391, fax (817) 280–6466. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Eric Haight, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222–5110, email:
On June 20, 2013, at 78 FR 37158, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. CF–2004–17R1, dated February 11, 2005 (AD No. CF–2004–17R1), issued by TCAA, which is the aviation authority for Canada. AD No. CF–2004–17R1 requires replacing or reworking freewheel assemblies on the Bell Model 206L–4 and 407 helicopters. TCAA advises of a manufacturing oversight where a lubrication channel was not machined into the aft bearing cap of some freewheel units to allow oil flow into the aft bearing support assembly. TCAA states that lack of lubrication may adversely affect the durability and potentially the function of the freewheel unit.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 37158, June 20, 2013).
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCAA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TCAA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
This AD differs from the TCAA AD as follows:
• We do not use a calendar time, which has already passed.
• We require all affected helicopters to comply within 50 hours TIS; the TCAA AD has different compliance times as stipulated by the calculated average engine start cycle count identified in the applicable alert service bulletin (ASB), and a 300-hour TIS terminating action for modifying all affected helicopters.
• We do not require referencing compliance with the ASBs as does the TCAA AD, and we do not require you to provide an affected cap for rework to Bell Tennessee nor require the original cap to be reworked by Bell Tennessee.
• We do not require any action on “spare” parts not installed on a helicopter but would require, before installing any replacement bearing support assembly, ensuring that the rework has been done.
Bell has issued ASB No. 206L–04–129 for the Model 206L–4 and ASB No. 407–04–66 for the Model 407, both Revision A, and both dated December 1, 2004, which specify identifying the affected freewheel aft bearing caps. The ASBs provide separate procedures, depending on whether helicopters are “not exclusively used for training” or “exclusively used for training,” for replacing or reworking the freewheel cap assembly and replacing the output shaft, part number (P/N) 406–040–517–101, and sprag and retainer, P/N 406–040–580–103. TCCA classified these ASBs as mandatory and issued AD No. CF–2004–17R to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
We estimate there are 212 Model 206L–4 helicopters and 540 Model 407 helicopters of U.S. registry; however, we estimate that only 80 helicopters are affected by this AD. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD: It will take about 16 work hours to replace the freewheel unit for all the affected parts at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $21,600 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost per helicopter will be $22,900, and the total cost of the AD on U.S. operators will be $1,836,800.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model 206L–4 and 407 helicopters, with a freewheel aft bearing cap (cap), part number (P/N) 406–040–509–101, with a serial number with a prefix of “A-” and Nos. 1833 through 1912, installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as certain caps being manufactured without a lubrication channel to allow oil flow into the aft bearing support assembly, which could result in failure of the freewheel unit and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS):
(1) Remove and disassemble each freewheel assembly.
(2) Replace the sprag and retainer (item 7), the output shaft (item 10), and the aft seal (item 3), as depicted in Figure 2 of Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L–04–129 for the Model 206L–4 and ASB No. 407–04–66 for the Model 407, both Revision A, and both dated December 1, 2004.
(3) Visually inspect the remaining freewheel part details for a missing channel.
(4) If the channel is missing, replace or rework the cap assembly by following the instructions depicted in Figure 3 of ASB 206L–04–129 or ASB 407 04–66, as applicable for your model helicopter. Using a vibrating stylus, mark the letter “R” at the end of the serial number on the cap assembly.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Eric Haight, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222–5110, email:
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD No. CF–2004–17R1, dated February 11, 2005. You may view the TCCA AD at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300: Main Rotor Drive System.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L–04–129, Revision A, dated December 1, 2004.
(ii) Bell ASB No. 407–04–66, Revision A, dated December 1, 2004.
(3) For Bell service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, Texas 76101, telephone (817) 280–3391, fax (817) 280–6466.
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003–08–51 for MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI), Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 369F and 369FF helicopters with certain MDHI or Helicopter Technology Company (HTC) tail rotor blades installed. AD 2003–08–51 required reducing the retirement life of each tail rotor blade (blade), performing a one-time visual inspection of each blade's pitch horn (pitch horn) for a crack or corrosion, and replacing any cracked blade or any blade that has exceeded its retirement life with an
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact MD Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215–9734; telephone 1–800–388–3378; fax 480–346–6813; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627–5232; email
On May 13, 2013, at 78 FR 27867, the
Since we published AD No. 2003–08–51, investigation of an accident in England found corrosion on the pitch horn that was not detected under the paint. The corrosion compromised the shot peen surface, which caused premature fatigue failure.
As a result, the NPRM (78 FR 27867, May 13, 2013) proposed to require establishing a retirement life for new applicable blades of 400 hours time-in-service (TIS), replacing within 10 hours TIS any installed blades with 390 to 700 hours TIS, and replacing before further flight any blades with more than 700 hours TIS. Within 60 days and thereafter at intervals not to exceed one year, the NPRM proposed to inspect all other blades with a 10X or higher power magnifying glass for a crack, pitting, corrosion, and the condition of the dimpled shot peen surface. If there is a crack, pitting, corrosion, or a nonconforming shot peen surface, the NPRM proposed to require replacement of the blade with an airworthy blade. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent a pitch horn from cracking and separating from the blade, leading to an unbalanced condition, vibration, loss of tail rotor pitch control, and loss of directional control of the helicopter.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 27867, May 13, 2013).
We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
We reviewed MDHI Service Bulletins SB369D–210, SB369E–105, SB369F–091, and SB369H–252, all dated November 21, 2011, and HTC Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 3100–5, dated August 25, 2011 (service bulletins). The service bulletins specify removing the paint from the pitch horn, performing an inspection of the blade using a 10x magnifying glass and a bright light, repainting the pitch horn area, and repeating the inspection annually. The service bulletins state that no corrosion, pitting, or cracking is acceptable. The MDHI service bulletins adds that a lack, removal, or blending of the shot peen surface is unacceptable.
We estimate that this AD will affect 827 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs will average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:
• The inspection will require 4.5 work hours, and parts will cost $20 for a total cost of about $403 per helicopter and $333,281 for the U.S. fleet.
• Replacing a tail rotor blade, if needed, would require 1 work hour. Parts would cost $15,951, for a total cost of $16,036 per helicopter.
• The cost is negligible to revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual to reflect a blade's new retirement life.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI), Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 369F and 369FF helicopters with a tail rotor blade (blade) part number (P/N) 369D21640–501, 369D21640–503, 369D21641–501, 369D21641–503, 369D21642–501, 369D21642–503, 369D21643–501, or 369D21643–503 installed, or with a Helicopter Technology Company blade P/N 500P3100–101, 500P3100–301, 500P3300–501, or 500P3500–701 installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as the tail rotor blade pitch horn (pitch horn) separating from the tail rotor blade, leading to an unbalanced condition, vibration, loss of tail rotor pitch control and loss of directional control of the helicopter.
This AD supersedes AD No. 2003–08–51, Amendment 39–13215 (68 FR 39449, July 2, 2003; correction 68 FR 47447, August 11, 2003).
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Before further flight, for each applicable blade, revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual to reflect that the blade has a retirement life of 400 hours time-in-service (TIS).
(2) For helicopters with an applicable blade installed that has 390 through 700 hours TIS, within 10 hours TIS, replace the blade with an airworthy blade.
(3) For all other applicable helicopters, within 60 days, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed one year, remove the paint from the blade pitch control arm in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Section 2.A.(1) through 2.A.(3), of MDHI Service Bulletins SB369D–210, SB369E–105, SB369F–091, and SB369H–252, all dated November 21, 2011, as applicable to your model helicopter.
(i) Using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect all four sides and the pocket of the blade pitch control arm for a crack, pitting, or corrosion and for the condition of the dimpled shot peen surface by referring to Figure 1 of MDHI Service Bulletins SB369D–210, SB369E–105, SB369F–091, and SB369H–252, as applicable to your model helicopter, and by reviewing the rotorcraft maintenance records to determine whether rework was done in this area.
(ii) If there is pitting, corrosion, a crack, blending or removal of any of the dimpled shot peen surface, or any indication that the shot peen has not been done, replace the blade with an airworthy blade.
(iii) If there is no pitting, corrosion, cracks, or blending or removal of any of the dimpled shot peen surface, refinish the stripped pitch control arm in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Section 2.A.(6) through 2.A.(7), of MDHI Service Bulletins SB369D–210, SB369E–105, SB369F–091, and SB369H–252, as applicable to your model helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627–5232; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD No. 2003–08–51 (68 FR 39449, July 2, 2003; correction 68 FR 47447, August 11, 2003) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements in this AD.
MD Helicopters, Inc., maintenance manuals CSP–HMI2, TR12–001, CHP–H–4, and TR12–001, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact MD Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215–9734; telephone 1–800–388–3378; fax 480–346–6813; email
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail Rotor Blades.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369D–210, dated November 21, 2011.
(ii) MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369E–105, dated November 21, 2011.
(iii) MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369F–091, dated November 21, 2011.
(iv) MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369H–252, dated November 21, 2011.
Note 1 to paragraph (j)(2): MD Helicopters Service Bulletins SB369D–210, SB369E–105, SB369F–091, and SB369H–252, all dated November 21, 2011, are co-published as one document.
(3) For MD Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact MD Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215–9734; telephone 1–800–388–3378; fax 480–346–6813; email
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
(5) You may also view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72–101, –201, –102, –202, –211, –212, and –212A airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of airplane incidents and accidents that have occurred because of low-level fuel tank situations and fuel starvation that resulted in engine flameouts. This AD requires installing a fuel quantity indicator (FQI) equipped with a locking adaptor on the electrical connector. We are issuing this AD to prevent an engine flame-out, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0047, dated March 4, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Large aeroplane incidents and accidents have occurred because of fuel tank low level situations, or because of fuel starvation, resulting in one or several engine(s) flame-out. The results of the investigation into an ATR 72 accident in August 2005 have shown that overruling standard operational procedures and maintenance practices have led to this kind of occurrence.
Consequently, additional actions to help avoid maintenance errors, like installation of a wrong gauge or wrong indicator, need to be taken.
Although it is recognised that the fuel (indicating) system of the ATR 42/72 type design is compliant with the applicable requirements, the risk of other maintenance errors will be mitigated by making installation of an ATR 42 Fuel Quantity Indicator (FQI) on an ATR 72 aeroplane mechanically impossible through a specific design change on the ATR 72.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the ATR 72 FQI by installing a locking adaptor on the electrical connector. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 42898, July 18, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 42898, July 18, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 42898, July 18, 2013).
Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects 25 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it takes 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,882 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72–101, –201, –102, –202, –211, –212, and –212A airplanes, certificated in any category, except airplanes that have received ATR Modification 5948 in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports of airplane incidents and accidents that have occurred because of low-level fuel tank situations and fuel starvation that resulted in engine flameouts. We are issuing this AD to prevent an engine flame-out, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Install a fuel quantity indicator (FQI) equipped with a locking adaptor on the electrical connector, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72–28–1026, dated February 26, 2013.
(1) For airplanes on which a fuel secondary low level detection system is not installed: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes on which a fuel secondary low level detection system is installed: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013–0047, dated March 4, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72–28–1026, dated February 26, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot,
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. This AD was prompted by certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. This AD requires, for certain airplanes, a modification of the web of the horizontal stabilizer center section rear spar. For the other airplanes, this AD requires an inspection for cracks in the web, and repair or modification as applicable. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking at the upper fastener holes in the riveted web in the horizontal stabilizer center section rear spar, which could result in failure of the spar forging and lead to horizontal stabilizer separation and loss of control of the airplane.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6577; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the NPRM (78 FR 42720, July 17, 2013).
Since the NPRM (78 FR 42720, July 17, 2013) was published, we have clarified the applicability in paragraph (c) of this final rule to reflect the most recent type certificate data sheet for The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 42720, July 17, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 42720, July 17, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 106 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII,
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727–100, 727 –100C, 727–200, and 727–200F series airplanes, certificated in any category, identified as Group III and Group IV in Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking at the upper fastener holes in the riveted web in the horizontal stabilizer center section rear spar, which could lead to horizontal stabilizer separation and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified as Group III in Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, do an eddy-current inspection for cracks in the web, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970.
(1) Before the accumulation of 60,000 total flight cycles.
(2) Within 24 months or 2,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
For airplanes identified as Group III in Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970: After the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) If no crack is found, before further flight, modify the web of the horizontal stabilizer center section rear spar, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970.
(2) If any crack is found, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
For airplanes identified as Group IV in Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, modify the web of the horizontal stabilizer center section rear spar, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970.
(1) Before the accumulation of 60,000 total flight cycles.
(2) Within 24 months or 2,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6577; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 55–46, dated April 8, 1970.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330–300 series airplanes and Model A340–200 and –300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion found on certain trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuators (THSA), affecting the ballscrew lower splines between the tie bar and the screw-jack. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections for corrosion of certain THSAs, ballscrew integrity tests if necessary; and replacing any affected THSA with a serviceable or new and improved THSA, if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion of the THSAs, which could lead, in the case of ballscrew rupture, to the loss of transmission of THSA torque loads from the ballscrew to the tie-bar, prompting THSA blowback, and possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
You may examine the AD on the Internet at
For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1138; fax (425) 227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0061R1, dated November 30, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Some Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuators (THSA), Part Number (P/N) 47147–500, have been found with corrosion, affecting the ballscrew lower splines between the tie bar and the screw-jack.
The results of the technical investigations have identified that the corrosion was caused by a combination of:
The results of the technical investigations have also concluded that THSA P/N 47147–500 and P/N 47147–700 ballscrews might be affected by this corrosion issue.
THSA P/N 47147–400 ballscrews might be affected as well, but should no longer be in service, and modified into P/N 47147–500, as required by EASA AD 2010–0192 and EASA AD 2010–0193 [and as required by FAA AD 2005–07–04, Amendment 39–14028 (70 FR 16104, March 30, 2005)].
This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead, in case of ballscrew rupture, to loss of transmission of THSA torque loads from the ballscrew to the tie-bar, prompting THSA blowback, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
To correct this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2012–0061 to require repetitive [detailed] visual inspections of the ballscrew lower splines of THSA having P/N 47147–500 or P/N 47147–700 to detect corrosion and, depending on findings [ballscrew integrity tests], the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions [replacing the affected THSA with a serviceable or improved THSA].
Since that [EASA] AD [2012–0061] was issued, Airbus published new Service Bulletin (SB) A330–27–3194 or Airbus SB A340–27–4187 (Airbus modification 202802), which allow installation in service of an improved THSA P/N 47172–530.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD [2012–0061R1] is revised to specify that installation of THSA P/N 47172–530 is an alternative (optional) terminating action to the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We have received Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330–27–3179 and A340–27–4175, both Revision 01, both dated June 13, 2013; which specify no additional work. We have updated paragraphs (g), (i), and (n) of this final rule to reference this service information. We have also added new paragraph (m) to this final rule to allow credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g), (i), and (n) of this final rule, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330–27–3179, dated February 14, 2012; or A340–27–4175, dated February 14, 2012. Subsequent paragraphs have been re-designated accordingly.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 46543, August 1, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46543, August 1, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46543, August 1, 2013).
Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects about 30 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it takes about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $15,300, or $510 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 13 work-hours and require parts costing up to $722,556 for a cost of up to $723,661 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120–0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes; and Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion found on certain trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuators (THSA), affecting the ballscrew lower splines between the tie bar and the screw-jack. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion of the THSAs, which could lead, in the case of ballscrew rupture, to loss of transmission of THSA torque loads from the ballscrew to the tie-bar, prompting THSA blowback, and possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, except as required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the gaps between the screw shaft and tie rod teeth of any THSA having part numbers (P/N) 47147–500 and 47147–700, to determine if the corrosion condition is Type I, Type II, or Type III, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3179, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes); or A340–27–4175, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes); and the Accomplishment Instructions and flowchart
(1) For any THSA, which, as of the effective date of this AD, has accumulated less than 156 months since its first flight on an airplane as THSA P/N 47147–400, or since its first flight after the modification specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3052 or A340–27–4059 has been done: Do the inspection before the accumulation of 156 months but not before the accumulation of 132 months since first flight on an airplane as THSA P/N 47147–400, or since the THSA's first flight after the modification specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3052 or A340–27–4059 has been done; or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.
(2) For any THSA, which, as of the effective date of this AD, has accumulated 156 months or more since its first flight on an airplane as THSA P/N 47147–400, or since its first flight after the modification specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3052 or A340–27–4059 has been done: Do the inspection within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
(1) Some THSAs having P/N 47147–500 (and further derivative with P/N 47147–700) were originally THSA P/N 47147–400 and were subsequently modified in service. In this case, the time accumulated by any THSA must be calculated from the first installation on airplanes as THSA P/N 47147–400.
(2) Some THSAs having P/N 47147–500 (and further derivative with P/N 47147–700) were originally THSA P/N 47147–200, –210, –213, –300, –303, or –350 and were subsequently modified in service as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3052 or A340–27–4059. In this case, the time accumulated by any THSA must be calculated from the first flight on an airplane after the THSA has been modified as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3052 or A340–27–4059.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, it is determined that a THSA has Type II or Type III corrosion: Before further flight, do a ballscrew integrity test, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3179, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes); or A340–27–4175, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes).
(1) For THSAs having Type II or Type III corrosion, and on which the results of the ballscrew integrity test were not correct, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3179, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes); or A340–27–4175, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes): Before further flight, replace the affected THSA with a new or serviceable THSA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3179, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes); or A340–27–4175, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes).
(2) For THSAs having Type III corrosion, and on which the results of the ballscrew integrity test are correct, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3179, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes); or A340–27–4175, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes): Within 10 days after the most recent inspection, replace the THSA with a new or serviceable THSA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3179, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes); or A340–27–4175, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes).
(3) For THSAs having Type II corrosion, and on which the results of the ballscrew integrity test are correct: Within 24 months or 4,400 flight cycles after the most recent inspection, whichever occurs first, replace the THSA with a new or serviceable THSA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3179, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes); or A340–27–4175, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes).
Replacement of a THSA with a THSA having P/N 47147–500 or 47147–700 does not constitute a terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) Replacing any THSA having P/N 47147–500 with a new improved THSA having P/N 47172–300 (Airbus modification 200238), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–27–3182 (for Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes); or A340–27–4178 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes); both dated February 14, 2012; terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) Replacing any THSA having P/N 47147–700 with a new improved THSA having P/N 47172–530 (Airbus modification 202802), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330–27–3194 (for Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes); or A340–27–4187 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes); both dated October 8, 2012; terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a THSA, P/N 47147–500 or P/N 47147–700, on any airplane, unless the THSA is classified as Type I (no corrosion), in accordance with the criteria defined in Goodrich Actuation Systems Service Bulletin 47147–27–18, dated February 17, 2012; and thereafter inspected in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD and any applicable actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD are accomplished.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g), (i), and (n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3179, dated February 14, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g), (i), and (n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–27–4175, dated February 14, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Airbus, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD, using Appendix 01 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3179, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A330–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes); or A340–27–4175, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013 (for Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 airplanes).
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0061R1, dated November 30, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified in paragraphs (q)(3) and (q)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–27–3179, Including Appendix 01, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330–27–3182, dated February 14, 2012.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330–27–3194, dated October 8, 2012.
(iv) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–27–4175, including Appendix 01, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2013.
(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A340–27–4178, dated February 14, 2012.
(vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340–27–4187, dated October 8, 2012.
(vii) Goodrich Actuation Systems Service Bulletin 47147–27–18, dated February 17, 2012.
(3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A, CL–601–3R, and CL–604 Variants) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of airspeed mismatch between the pilot and co-pilot's airspeed indicators, which occurred during or after heavy rain. This AD requires, for certain airplanes, inspecting for drain bottles having certain part numbers, and replacing affected drain bottles. This AD requires, for certain other airplanes, replacing drain bottles. We are issuing this AD to prevent pitot static tubing from becoming blocked by water, which if not corrected, could lead to erroneous airspeed and altitude indications, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228–7318; fax (516) 794–5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian
A number of reports were received from the operators indicating airspeed mismatch between the pilot and co-pilot's airspeed indicators. The erroneous indication occurred during or after heavy rain. Further investigation revealed that during heavy precipitation, the pitot static tubing may become partially or completely blocked by the water which didn't enter the drain bottle(s). This condition, if not corrected, may result in erroneous airspeed and altitude indications [and consequent loss of control of the airplane].
This [Canadian] AD mandates [for certain airplanes] the replacement of the drain bottles to improve drainage of the pitot-static tubing [and, for certain other airplanes, an inspection for, and replacement of, certain drain bottles].
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 22806, April 17, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 22806, April 17, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 77 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A and CL–601–3R Variants) airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 5001 through 5194 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–604 Variant) airplanes, S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 through 5918 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by reports of airspeed mismatch between the pilot and co-pilot's airspeed indicators, which occurred during or after heavy rain. We are issuing this AD to prevent pitot static tubing from becoming blocked by water, which if not corrected, could lead to erroneous airspeed and altitude indications, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
For Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A and CL–601–3R Variants) airplanes having S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect for drain bottles having part number (P/N) 50029–001, 50030–001, 9035000, 9035001, 9435014, 9435015, or 601A51704–5.
(1) If none of the part numbers identified in paragraph (g) of this AD are found, no further action is required by this paragraph for that airplane.
(2) If any part number identified in paragraph (g) of this AD is found: Before further flight, replace the drain bottles that are installed on the pitot and static lines of the air data computers (ADC), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601–0617, Revision 03, dated December 20, 2012.
For Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–604 Variant) airplanes having S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, replace drain bottles installed on the pitot and static lines of the ADCs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 604–34–065, Revision 02, dated December 20, 2012.
For Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–604 Variant) airplanes having S/Ns 5701 through 5918 inclusive: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, replace drain bottles installed on the pitot and static lines of the ADCs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605–34–027, Revision 02, dated December 20, 2012.
(1) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install drain bottles having P/N 50029–001, 50030–001, 9035000, 9035001, 9435014, 9435015, or 601A51704–5 on any Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A and CL–601–3R Variants) airplane.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install drain bottles having P/N 50029–001, 50030–001, 9035000, 9035001, 9435014, or 9435015 on the pitot and static lines of the ADCs; or drain bottles having P/N 50030–001, 50034–002, 9435014, or 9035001 on the pitot line of the integrated stand-by instrument (ISI); on any Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–604 Variant) airplanes, S/N 5301 through 5665 inclusive.
(3) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install drain bottles having P/N 50029–001 or 50030–001 on the pitot and static lines of the ADCs; or P/N 50030–001 or 50034–002 on the pitot line of the ISI; on any Model CL–600–2B16 (CL–604 Variant) airplanes.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using a service bulletin specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601–0617, Revision 02, dated November 14, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601–0617, Revision 01, dated November 12, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601–0617, dated July 31, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using a service bulletin specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i) or (k)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604–34–065, Revision 01, dated October 15, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604–34–065, dated July 31, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using a service bulletin specified in paragraph (k)(3)(i) or (k)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605–34–027, Revision 01, dated October 15, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605–34–027, dated July 31, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2012–30, dated December 7, 2012, for related information.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be obtained at the address specified in paragraph (n)(3) of this AD
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601–0617, Revision 03, dated December 20, 2012.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604–34–065, Revision 02, dated December 20, 2012.
(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605–34–027, Revision 02, dated December 20, 2012.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports indicating that a standard fuel tank access door was located where an impact-resistant access door was required, and stencils were missing from some impact-resistant access doors. This AD requires an inspection of the left- and right-hand wing fuel tank access doors to determine that impact-resistant access doors are installed in the correct locations, and to replace any door with an impact-resistant access door if necessary. This AD also requires an inspection for stencils and index markers on impact-resistant access doors, and application of new stencils or index markers if necessary. This AD also requires revising the maintenance program to incorporate changes to the airworthiness limitations section. We are issuing this AD to prevent foreign object penetration of the fuel tank, which could cause a fuel leak near an ignition source (e.g., hot brakes), consequently leading to a fuel-fed fire.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Suzanne Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. The Boeing Company supported the NPRM (78 FR 46538, August 1, 2013).
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46538, August 1, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46538, August 1, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 139 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727–100, 727–100C, 727–200, and 727–200F series airplanes; certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports indicating that a standard fuel tank access door was located where an impact-resistant access door was required, and stencils were missing from some impact-resistant access doors. We are issuing this AD to prevent foreign object penetration of the fuel tank, which could cause a fuel leak near an ignition source (e.g., hot brakes), consequently leading to a fuel-fed fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–28–0134, dated January 12, 2012.
(1) Do either a general visual inspection or ultrasonic non-destructive test of the left- and right-hand wing fuel tank access doors to determine whether impact-resistant access doors are installed in the correct locations. If any standard access door is found, before further flight, replace with an impact-resistant access door, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–28–0134, dated January 12, 2012.
(2) Do a general visual inspection of the left- and right-hand wing fuel tank impact-resistant access doors to verify stencils and index markers are applied. If a stencil or index marker is missing, before further flight, apply stencil or index marker, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–28–0134, dated January 12, 2012.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance program to incorporate Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL) Task 57–AWL–01, “Impact-Resistant Fuel Tank Access Door,” of Section 1, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) of Boeing 727–100/200 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Document D6–8766–AWL, Revision September 2012.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair
For more information about this AD, contact Suzanne Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 727–28–0134, dated January 12, 2012.
(ii) Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL) Task 57–AWL–01, “Impact-Resistant Fuel Tank Access Door,” of Section 1, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) of Boeing 727–100/200 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Document D6–8766–AWL, Revision September 2012.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for MDHI Model MD900 helicopters with certain main rotor blade (MRB) retention bolts (bolts) installed. This AD requires a daily check of the position of each bolt, a daily check and a repetitive inspection for a gap in each bolt, and, if necessary, removing and inspecting the bolt for a crack and replacing any cracked bolt with an airworthy bolt. This AD was prompted by multiple reports of in-service bolt failures. The actions are intended to prevent failure of a bolt, which could lead to loss of MRB structural integrity and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact MDHI, Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215–9734, telephone (800) 388–3378, fax (480) 346–6813, or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712, telephone (562) 627–5233, fax (562) 627–5210, email
On June 14, 2013, at 78 FR 35773, the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 35773, June 14, 2013).
We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
MDHI issued Alert Service Bulletin SB900–116R1, dated April 9, 2010 (ASB SB900–116R1), which supersedes ASB SB900–116, dated February 24, 2010 (ASB SB900–116).
ASB SB900–116 specifies a repetitive check of the blade retention bolts, part number (P/N) 900R3100001–103 and 900R3100001–105, for a gap and, depending on the outcome of the inspection, removing and inspecting the bolt for damage. The ASB also specifies a repetitive force check of each bolt, P/N 900R3100001–103, and a torque check of each bolt, P/N 900R3100001–105. Lastly, the ASB specifies a daily preflight check of each bolt to examine the position of the bolt and for a gap, and, if any bolt has moved up or down or if there was no gap, removing and inspecting the bolt.
Superseding ASB SB900–116R1 retains the same specifications as ASB SB90016, except that it revises the
This AD uses the term “inspect” when describing the action of inspecting a bolt for a crack and inspecting for a gap between the thrust washer and the retainer. The ASB uses the term “check.”
We estimate that this AD will affect 29 helicopters in the U.S. registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to comply with this AD: The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. It will take about .5 work hour to do a gap inspection of each bolt. It will take about 1 work hour to replace a cracked bolt and the required parts will cost $800 at a total cost per helicopter of $928.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model MD 900 helicopters with a main rotor blade retention bolt (bolt), part number (P/N) 900R3100001–103 or 900R3100001–105, installed; certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as bolt failure. This condition could result in loss of main rotor blade structural integrity and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Before the first flight of each day:
(i) Visually check each bolt for failure. Failure of a bolt may be indicated by movement of the bolt out of the bolt hole or by inconsistent extension of the bolt above or below the other bolts being inspected (a failed bolt migrates out of the bolt hole).
(ii) Visually check for a gap between the thrust washer and the retainer, P/N 900R2100009–101 or –103. The thrust washer is depicted as item 2 and the retainer is depicted as item 8 in Figure 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD.
(iii) The actions required by paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft maintenance records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)–(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(iv) If there is any indication of bolt failure or if there is no gap between the thrust washer and retainer, before further flight, remove and inspect the bolt for a crack. Replace any cracked bolt with an airworthy bolt.
(2) Within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, inspect each bolt for a gap between the thrust washer and the retainer.
(i) Determine whether an O-ring is installed. Install any missing O-ring.
(ii) If there is no gap between the thrust washer and retainer, before further flight, remove and inspect the bolt for a crack. Replace any cracked bolt with an airworthy bolt.
(iii) If there is a gap between the thrust washer and retainer, measure the gap in two locations, 180 degrees apart, with a feeler gage. If the gap is more than 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) at either location, before further flight, remove and inspect the bolt for a crack. Replace any cracked bolt with an airworthy bolt.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch (ANM–120L), FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your request to Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712, telephone (562) 627–5233, fax (562) 627–5210, email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
MDHI Alert Service Bulletin SB900–116R1, dated April 9, 2010, which supersedes MDHI Alert Service Bulletin SB SB900–116, dated February 24, 1010, neither of which is incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact MDHI, Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215–9734, telephone (800) 388–3378, fax (480) 346–6813, or at
Joint Aircraft System Component: 6210: Main rotor blade retention bolts.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of movement of the rudder pedals being impeded due to corrosion of the trunnion shaft of the rudder feel trim unit (RFTU). This AD requires an inspection to determine if certain RFTUs are installed, an operational check for signs of seizure of affected parts, repetitive lubrication of certain RFTUs, and replacement of the RFTU if necessary. Installing replacement RFTUs having conformal bushings terminates the repetitive lubrication requirements. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any sign of rough movement or seizure of the trunnion shaft and its bushing, which could cause a rudder control jam or a large and rapid alternating rudder input leading to a structural failure of the vertical fin.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; email
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228–7318; fax (516) 794–5531.
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The SNPRM was published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2012–02R1, dated October 12, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
There have been several reported incidents on DHC–8 Series 400 aeroplanes where the movement of the rudder pedals has been impeded. An investigation showed that the Rudder Feel Trim Unit (RFTU) trunnion shaft was corroded. The root cause of the corrosion was a quality escape where cadmium plating on the trunnion bushing within the RFTU assembly was not removed. Corrosion on the shaft and in the trunnion bushing seized the trunnion and caused difficulties in controlling the rudder movement.
This condition, if not corrected, could cause a rudder control jam or a large and rapid alternating rudder input leading to a structural failure of the vertical fin.
This [TCCA] Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued [inspect to determine serial number, an operational check for seizure, repetitive lubrication and] to replace the affected RFTUs to limit the possibility of binding and replace the affected RFTUs with units that have been reworked with conformal bushings to terminate the lubrication requirements.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.
Horizon Air (Horizon) requested that paragraph (g)(2) of the SNPRM (78 FR 15655, March 12, 2013) be revised to allow operators that perform a review of airplane maintenance records, in lieu of visually inspecting the serial number of the RFTU, time to schedule the operational check specified by paragraph (g)(2) of the SNPRM. Horizon stated that the compliance time “before further flight” specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the SNPRM would immediately ground aircraft.
We agree with Horizon's request. We have revised the compliance time in paragraph (g)(2) of this final rule to “200 flight hours or 2 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD” for performing the operational check specified in that paragraph.
We have revised paragraph (h) of this final rule to specify that installing replacement RFTUs having conformal bushings terminates the repetitive lubrication requirements of paragraph
We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (78 FR 15655, March 12, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (78 FR 15655, March 12, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 83 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/N) 4001, 4003 and subsequent, equipped with rudder feel trim unit (RFTU) part number (P/N) 399500–1007.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of movement of the rudder pedals being impeded due to corrosion of the trunnion shaft of the RFTU. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any sign of rough movement or seizure of the trunnion shaft and its bushing, which could cause a rudder control jam or a large and rapid alternating rudder input leading to a structural failure of the vertical fin.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 200 flight hours or two months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Inspect the RTFU to determine whether the serial number is in the range from S/N 0008 through 0509 inclusive without a suffix `B,' in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–60, dated July 12, 2012. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the serial number of the RFTU can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) If the RFTU's serial number is not in the range from S/N 0008 through 0509 inclusive, or if the serial number has a suffix `B,' no further action is required for this paragraph.
(2) If the RFTU's serial number is in the range from S/N 0008 through 0509 inclusive, including those with a suffix `A,' but not including those with suffix `B': Within 200 flight hours or 2 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, perform an operational check of the RFTU for any sign of rough movement or seizure of the trunnion or center shaft, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–60, dated July 12, 2012.
(i) If rough movement or seizure of the RFTU trunnion or center shaft is found: Before further flight, replace the RFTU with a new or serviceable RFTU, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–60, dated July 12, 2012.
(ii) If no rough movement or seizure of the RFTU trunnion or center shaft is found: Before further flight, lubricate the RFTU, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–60, dated July 12, 2012. Repeat the lubrication of the RFTU at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours or 3 months, whichever occurs first, until the RFTU is replaced with a unit that has a serial number outside the affected range or a serial number with a suffix `B.'
For airplanes having an RFTU identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Except as required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, within 5,000 flight hours or 3 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace all affected RFTUs with units that have a serial number outside the range from S/Ns 0008 through 0509 inclusive, or that have a serial number with a suffix `B,' in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–60, dated July 12, 2012. Installing replacement RFTUs having conformal bushings terminates the repetitive lubrication requirements of paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD for the affected RTFU.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an RFTU P/N 399500–1007 with a serial number from S/N 0008 through 0509 inclusive, including serial numbers with suffix `A,' on any airplane, except that RFTUs having a serial number with suffix `B' may be installed.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2012–02R1, dated October 12, 2012, for related information, which can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–27–60, dated July 12, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; email
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bell Model 407 helicopters. This AD requires installing a placard beneath the NR/NP dual tachometer and revising the limitations section of the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM). This AD was prompted by several incidents of third stage engine turbine wheel failures, which were caused by excessive vibrations at certain engine speeds during steady-state operations. These actions are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–0272; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
On June 7, 2013, at 78 FR 34286, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Bell Model 407 helicopters, serial numbers 53000 through 53644. The NPRM proposed to require installing a placard on the instrument panel below the NR/NP dual tachometer and revising the Operating Limitations section of the Model 407 RFM to limit steady-state operation between speeds of 68.4% to 87.1%. The proposed requirements were intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. CF–2004–09R1, dated July 4, 2005, issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada. TCCA issued AD No. CF–2004–09R1 to correct an unsafe condition for Model 407 helicopters. TCCA advises that several failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls Royce 250–C30S and 250–C47B engines, and three of these failures have occurred to the 250–C47B engine used by Bell on the Model 407. According to TCCA, Rolls Royce has determined that detrimental vibrations can occur within a particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a contributing factor to these failures. Bell has revised the operating limitations of the RFM and provided a corresponding decal on the instrument panel to inform pilots to avoid steady-state operations between 68.4% and 87.1% turbine speeds.
The TCCA AD requires amending the RFM, advising pilots of the change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 407–05–67, dated June 8, 2005 (ASB 407–05–67).
After our NPRM (78 FR 34286, June 7, 2013) was published, we received comments from one commenter.
Rolls-Royce Corporation requested that in addition to requiring the placard on the instrument panel, we allow operators the option to temporarily mark the N
We disagree. Marking the glass surface of the gauge can create parallax issues when viewing the avoidance ranges on the gauge, resulting in erroneous readings.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCCA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the TCCA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TCCA, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The TCCA AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days, while this AD requires compliance within 30 days.
Bell has issued ASB 407–05–67, which contains procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel below the main rotor RPM (Nr)/power turbine RPM (Np) dual tachometer and for inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual.
We estimate that this AD will affect 472 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Amending the RFM will require about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S. operators of $20,296. Installing the decal will require about 0.2 work-hour and required parts cost $20, for a cost per helicopter of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $17,464. Based on these estimates, the total cost of this AD will be $80 per helicopter and $37,760 for the U.S. operator fleet.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Bell Model 407 helicopters, serial numbers 53000 through 53644, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a third stage turbine vibration, which could result in turbine failure, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 30 days:
(1) Revise the Operating Limitations section of the Model 407 Rotorcraft Flight Manual by inserting Section 1, Limitations, pages 1–6 and 1–14, of Bell BHT–407–FM–1, revision 3, dated April 26, 2005.
(2) Remove placard part number (P/N) 230–075–213–105, if installed.
(3) Install placard P/N 230–075–213–111, or equivalent, directly below the NR/NP dual tachometer.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 407–05–67, dated June 8, 2005, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–0272; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD No. CF–2004–09R1, dated July 4, 2005. You may view the TCCA AD on the internet in the AD Docket at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7250: Turbine Section.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pages 1–6 and 1–14 of Section 1, Limitations, of Bell Rotorcraft Flight Manual BHT–407–FM–1, Revision 3, dated April 26, 2005.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Bell service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–0272; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Model 230 helicopters. This AD requires installing a placard on the instrument panel and revising the limitations section of the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM). This AD was prompted by several incidents of third stage engine turbine wheel failures, which were caused by excessive vibrations at certain engine speeds during steady-state operations. These actions are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–0272; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
On June 7, 2013, at 78 FR 34279, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. CF–2005–24, dated July 4, 2005, issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada. TCCA issued AD CF–2005–24 to correct an unsafe condition for Model 230 helicopters. TCCA advises of several failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls Royce 250–C30S and 250–C47B engines and that three of these failures have occurred on the same engine used by Bell on Model 230 helicopters. According to TCCA, Rolls Royce has determined that detrimental vibrations can occur within a particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a contributing factor to these failures. Bell has revised the operating limitations of the RFM and provided a corresponding decal on the instrument panel to inform pilots to avoid steady-state operations between 71% and 92% turbine speeds.
The TCCA AD requires amending the RFM, advising pilots of the change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 230–05–33, dated June 10, 2005 (ASB 230–05–33).
After our NPRM (78 FR 34279, June 7, 2013) was published, we received comments from one commenter.
Rolls-Royce Corporation requested that in addition to requiring the placard on the instrument panel, we allow operators the option to temporarily mark the N
We disagree. Marking the glass surface of the gauge can create parallax issues when viewing the avoidance ranges on the gauge, resulting in erroneous readings.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCCA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the TCCA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TCCA, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The TCCA AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days, while this AD requires compliance within 30 days.
Bell has issued ASB 230–05–33, which contains procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel and for inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual.
We estimate that this AD will affect 12 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Amending the RFM requires about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S. operators of $516. Installing the decal requires about 0.2 work-hour and required parts cost $20, for a cost per helicopter of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $444. Based on these estimates, the total cost of this AD will be $80 per helicopter and $960 for the U.S. operator fleet.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Bell Model 230 helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a third stage turbine vibration, which could result in turbine failure, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 30 days:
(1) Revise the Operating Limitations section of the Model 230 Rotorcraft Flight Manual by inserting Section 1, Limitations, page 1–12, of Bell BHT–230–FM–1, revision 5, dated May 6, 2005.
(2) Install placard part number 230–075–213–115, or equivalent, on the instrument panel directly below the No. 1 and No. 2 engine oil temp/press indicator.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 230–05–33, dated June 10, 2005, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–0272; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD No. CF–2005–24, dated July 4, 2005. You may view the TCCA AD on the internet in the AD Docket at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7250: Turbine Section.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Page 1–12 of Section 1, Limitations, of Bell Rotorcraft Flight Manual BHT–230–FM–1, Revision 5, dated May 6, 2005.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Bell service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–0272; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146–RJ series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked pick-up bracket of the forward outboard pylon of the number 1 engine due to stress corrosion. This AD requires repetitive inspections and, depending on findings, repair of the pylon pick-up brackets. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the pick-up bracket, which could result in the engine pylon separating from the wing, with consequent damage to the airplane and reduced controllability.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone: (425) 227–1175; fax (425) 227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0136, dated July 20, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
While carrying out a scheduled environmental inspection, an operator found a cracked number 1 engine forward outboard pylon pick-up bracket. Cracks were present on the upper flange of the bracket running between all 3 attachment bolt holes. Subsequent investigation revealed that the cause of cracking was stress corrosion. Cracking of the pylon pick-up brackets at the top and bottom flanges could reduce the capability of the brackets to support the ultimate sideload, particularly if cracking is present on more than one flange.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the engine pylon separation from the wing, likely resulting in damage to [and controllability of] the aeroplane and possible injury to persons on the ground.
For reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the inspection and, depending on findings, repair of the affected pylon pick-up brackets.
The inspection includes a special detailed inspection with a videoscope. Corrective actions can include replacing any affected pylon pick-up brackets, and doing any follow-on skin repairs. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 46301, July 31, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46301, July 31, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46301, July 31, 2013).
Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it takes 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $170, or $170 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 5, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146–100A, –200A, and –300A airplanes; and Model Avro 146–RJ70A, 146–RJ85A, and 146–RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked pick-up bracket of the forward outboard pylon of the number 1 engine due to stress corrosion. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the pick-up bracket, which could result in the engine pylon separating from the wing, with consequent damage to the airplane and reduced controllability.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(1) Within the initial compliance time specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months: Do a special detailed inspection with a videoscope of the flanges of the Rib 10 forward pylon pick-up bracket of each engine pylon for cracking, corrosion, and other defects, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57–073, Revision 1, dated January 27, 2012; or Revision 2, dated March 8, 2012.
(i) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(ii) For airplanes on which a maintenance records check positively determines that both forward pylon pick-up brackets have been replaced since first flight of the airplane: Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, any cracking, corrosion or other defect of any Rib 10 forward pylon pick-up bracket is found: Before further flight, repair or replace the bracket as specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Repair a bracket in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57–073, Revision 1, dated January 27, 2012; or Revision 2, dated March 8, 2012.
(ii) Replace a bracket using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
(3) Repairing or replacing a Rib 10 forward pylon pick-up bracket, as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57–073, dated September 6, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012–0136, dated July 20, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57–073, Revision 1, dated January 27, 2012.
(ii) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57–073, Revision 2, dated March 8, 2012.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
(4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bell Model 430 helicopters. This AD requires installing a placard on the instrument panel and revising the limitations section of the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM). This AD was prompted by several incidents of third stage engine turbine wheel failures, which were caused by excessive vibrations at certain engine speeds during steady-state operations. These actions are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–0272; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
On June 7, 2013, at 78 FR 34290, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. CF–2005–25, dated July 5, 2005, issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada. TCCA issued AD No. CF–2005–25 to correct an unsafe condition for Model 430 helicopters. TCCA advises that several failures of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls Royce 250–C30S and 250–C47B engines and that a similar turbine wheel is installed on the 250–C40B engine used by Bell on Model 430 helicopters. According to TCCA, Rolls Royce has determined that detrimental vibrations can occur within a particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a contributing factor to these failures. Bell has revised the operating limitations of the RFM and provided a corresponding decal on the instrument panel to inform pilots to avoid steady-state operations between 71% and 91% turbine speeds.
The TCCA AD requires amending the RFM, advising pilots of the change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 430–05–34, dated June 10, 2005 (ASB 430–05–34).
After our NPRM (78 FR 34290, June 7, 2013) was published, we received comments from one commenter.
Rolls-Royce Corporation requested that in addition to requiring the placard on the instrument panel, we allow operators the option to temporarily mark the N
We disagree. Marking the glass surface of the gauge can create parallax issues when viewing the avoidance ranges on the gauge, resulting in erroneous readings.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCCA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the TCCA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TCCA, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The TCCA AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days, while this AD requires compliance within 30 days.
Bell has issued ASB 430–05–34, which contains procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel and for inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual.
We estimate that this AD will affect 37 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Amending the RFM requires about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S. operators of $1,591. Installing the decal requires about 0.2 work-hour and required parts cost $20, for a cost per helicopter of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $1,369. Based on these estimates, the total cost of this AD will be $80 per helicopter and $2,960 for the U.S. operator fleet.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Bell Model 430 helicopters, serial number 49001 through 49111, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a third stage turbine vibration, which could result in turbine failure, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 30 days:
(1) Revise the Operating Limitations section of the Model 430 Rotorcraft Flight Manual by inserting Section 1, Limitations, page 1–7, of Bell BHT–430–FM–1, revision 18, dated September 1, 2009.
(2) Install placard part number 230–075–213–113, or equivalent, on the instrument panel directly below the pilot audio select panel.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 430–05–34, dated June 10, 2005, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–0272; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD No. CF–2005–25, dated July 5, 2005. You may view the TCCA AD on the internet in the AD Docket at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7250: Turbine Section.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Page 1–7 of Section 1, Limitations, of Bell Rotorcraft Flight Manual BHT–430–FM–1, revision 18, dated September 1, 2009.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Bell service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; fax (450) 433–0272; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class D and E airspace at Kenai Municipal Airport, Kenai, AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. A minor adjustment is made to the geographic coordinates of the airport. Additionally, language establishing dates and times of use of the procedures was inadvertently omitted from the description for the Class E airspace designated as an extension, and is included in this rule. This action, initiated by the biennial review of the Kenai airspace area, enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, February 6, 2014. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4517.
On June 10, 2013, the FAA published in the
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area, at Kenai Municipal Airport, Kenai, AK. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The FAAs biennial review found modification of the airspace necessary for the safety and management of aircraft departing and arriving under IFR operations at the airport. The Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace excluded below 1100 feet MSL beyond 4 miles from the airport is decreased, and the segment of the Class E airspace designated as an extension extending to 10.2 miles northeast of the airport is adjusted to coincide with the dimensions of the cutout. Also, this action adds the text specifying the operating hours established in advance by NOTAM in the airspace description for Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, does 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 discusses 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 amends controlled airspace at the Kenai Municipal Airport, Kenai, AK.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of Kenai Municipal Airport, excluding the airspace below 1,100 feet MSL beyond 4 miles from the airport extending from the 310° bearing clockwise to the 346° bearing of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2600 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of Kenai Municipal Airport, excluding the airspace below 1,100 feet MSL beyond 4 miles from the airport extending from the 310° bearing clockwise to the 346° bearing of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from the surface beginning at lat. 60°39′25″ N., long. 151°17′17″ W.; to lat. 60°45′01″ N., long. 151°10′27″ W.; to lat. 60°41′12″ N., long. 150°57′33″ W.; to lat. 60°35′34″ N., long. 151° 04′25″ W., thence counterclockwise along the 5.2-mile radius of the airport to the point of beginning. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from the surface beginning at lat. 60°39′25″ N., long. 151°17′17″ W.; to lat. 60°45′01″ N., long. 151°10′27″ W.; to lat. 60°41′12″ N., long. 150°57′33″ W.; to lat. 60°35′34″ N., long. 151° 04′25″ W., thence counterclockwise along the 5.2-mile radius of the airport to the point of beginning. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces the deletion of the Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site (Site) located in Petaluma, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of California, through the California Regional Water Quality Control Board—San Francisco Bay Region, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This rule is effective October 31, 2013.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1990–0010. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Locations, contacts, phone numbers and viewing hours are:
Dante Rodriguez, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, SFD–8–2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972–3166, email
The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site, Petaluma, California. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was August 23, 2013. One set of public comments containing 15 comments was received, inquiring about the technical details of EPA's site investigation and remediation. EPA explained its technical rationale for all the questions raised, demonstrating that its investigation, remediation, and monitoring thereof justify the deletion of the Site. A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in both the docket, EPA–HQ–SFUND–1990–0010, on
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
GSA is amending the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by removing the conference lodging allowance reimbursement option for employees on temporary duty (TDY) travel. This case is included in GSA's retrospective review of existing regulations under Executive Order 13563. Additional information is located in GSA's retrospective review available at:
For clarification of content, contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Program Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 202–219–2349. Please cite FTR Amendment 2013–01; FTR case 2012–301. Contact the Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), Attn: Ms. Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202–501–4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules.
GSA published a proposed rule in the
The public had 60 calendar days to comment on the proposed rule. GSA made no significant changes to the substance of this final rule.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This final rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801. This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
Acceptance of travel and related expenses from non-Federal sources, Administrative practices and procedures, Government employees, Travel and Per Diem expenses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5701–5709 and 31 U.S.C. 1353, GSA amends 41 CFR parts 301–11, 301–74, Appendix E to Chapter 301, 304–3, and 304–5 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 5707.
5 U.S.C. 5707.
While it is always desirable to obtain lodging facilities within the established lodging portion of the per diem rate for the chosen locality, it may not always be possible. In those instances when
Any advertisement or application for attendance at a conference described in § 301–74.9 must include notice of the prohibition against using a non-FEMA approved place of public accommodation for conferences. In addition, any executive agency, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, shall notify all non-Federal entities to which it provides Federal funds of this prohibition.
You may authorize actual expenses under § 301–11.300 of this chapter when the applicable lodging rate is inadequate.
5 U.S.C. 5707; 31 U.S.C. 1353.
5 U.S.C. 5707; 31 U.S.C. 1353.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2953.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to further implement DoD policy relating to competitive acquisitions in which only one offer is received, providing additional exceptions, and further addressing requests for data other than certified cost or pricing data from the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
Ms. Amy Williams, telephone 571–372–6106.
DoD published a proposed rule in the
The final rule applies to solicitations (including solicitations for task orders and delivery orders) issued on or after the publication date of the final rule.
No public comments were received. There are only minor editorial changes from the proposed rule that were made in the final rule. Revisions include:
• Renumbering section 12.301(f) subparagraphs due to DFARS baseline changes.
• Correcting, in section 12.301(f), prescription references cited for two provisions: 252.215–7007, Notice of Intent to Resolicit; and 252.215–7008, Only One Offer. Extraneous verbiage was removed from the prescription for 252.215–7004, Requirement for Submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications—Canadian Commercial Corporation.
• Revising the prescription at 215.371–6 to include a statement that provision 252.215–7007, Notice of Intent to Resolicit, should be included in solicitations for the acquisition of commercial items using Far part 12 procedures. This provision is included in the list at 212.301(f) as being applicable to solicitations for commercial items; however, the prescription at 215.371–6 inadvertently omitted restating applicability of the provision to FAR part 12 solicitations.
• Revising two prescriptions at 215.408(3) to include a statement that the provisions should be included in solicitations for the acquisition of commercial items using FAR part 12 procedures. The provisions are: 252.215–7003, Requirement for Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Canadian Commercial Corporation, and 252.215–7004, Requirement for Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications—Canadian Commercial Corporation. These two provisions are included in the list at 212.301(f) as being applicable to solicitations for commercial items; however, the prescriptions at 215.408(3) inadvertently omitted restating applicability of the provisions to FAR part 12 solicitations.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule further implements DoD policy relating to competitive acquisitions in which only one offer is received, providing additional exceptions, and further addressing requests for data other than certified cost or pricing data from the Canadian Commercial Corporation, especially relating to competitive solicitations when only one offer is received from the Canadian Commercial Corporation. The objective of the rule is to promote competition and ensure fair and reasonable prices by implementing DoD policy with regard to acquisitions when only one offer is received, including the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
There were no public comments in response to the proposed rule. There were no comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The final regulatory flexibility analysis for the final rule under FARS case 2011–D013, Only One Offer, was addressed in the
• Architect-engineer services are purchased under the Brooks Act. The final rule for Only One Offer was not made applicable to part 36. This rule specifically clarifies that it is inapplicable.
• The final rule for Only One Offer was not made applicable to set-asides under FAR part 19. The final rule specifically excluded small business set-asides and set asides under the HUBZone Program, the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Procurement Program, and the Women-Owned Small Business Program. The 8(a) Program was inadvertently omitted from the list of specific exclusions. In accordance with FAR 19.805–1, an acquisition offered to the SBA shall be awarded on the basis of competition limited to eligible 8(a) firms if two conditions are met: (1) the anticipated total value of the contract exceeds the thresholds at FAR 19.805–1(a)(2); and (2) there must be a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) firms will submit offers and that award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.
The final rule imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other information collection requirements. The submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data is covered in FAR 15.4 and associated clauses in 52.215, OMB clearance 9000–013.
There are no known significant alternatives to the rule that would adequately implement the DoD policy. There is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The final rule does not impose any additional information collection requirements that require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 35). The submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data required for negotiation is covered in FAR 15.4 and associated clauses in FAR 52.215, and in OMB clearance 9000–013, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data, in the amount of 10,101,684 hours.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 212, 215, 225, and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(f) * * *
(xi) Use the provision at 252.215–7003, Requirements for Submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Canadian Commercial Corporation, as prescribed at 215.408(3)(i).
(xii) Use the clause at 252.215–7004, Requirement for Submission of Data other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications—Canadian Commercial Corporation, as prescribed at 215.408(3)(ii).
(xiii) Use the provision at 252.215–7007, Notice of Intent to Resolicit, as prescribed at 215.371–6.
(xiv) Use the provision 252.215–7008, Only One Offer, as prescribed at 215.408(4).
(a) The requirements at section 215.371–2 do not apply to—
(1) Acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold;
(2) Acquisitions in support of contingency, humanitarian or peacekeeping operations, or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack;
(3) Small business set-asides under FAR subpart 19.5, set asides offered and accepted into the 8(a) Program under FAR subpart 19.8, or set-asides under the HUBZone Program (see FAR 19.1305(c)), the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Procurement Program (see FAR 19.1405(c)), or the Women-Owned Small Business Program (see FAR 19.1505(d));
(4) Acquisitions of basic or applied research or development, as specified in FAR 35.016(a), that use a broad agency announcement; or
(5) Acquisitions of architect-engineer services (see FAR 36.601–2).
(b) The applicability of an exception in paragraph (a) of this section does not eliminate the need for the contracting officer to seek maximum practicable competition and to ensure that the price is fair and reasonable.
Use the provision at 252.215–7007, Notice of Intent to Resolicit, in competitive solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that will be solicited for fewer than 30 days, unless an exception at 215.371–4 applies or the requirement is waived in accordance with 215.371–5.
The revision reads as follows:
(3) When contracting with the Canadian Commercial Corporation—
(i)(A) Use the provision at 252.215–7003, Requirement for Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Canadian Commercial Corporation—
(
(
(
(
(B) Do not use 252.225–7003 in lieu of FAR 52.215–20 in competitive acquisitions. The contracting officer may use FAR 52.215–20 with its Alternate IV, as prescribed at 15.408(l)(3), even if offers from the Canadian Commercial Corporation are anticipated; and
(ii)(A) Use the clause at 252.215–7004, Requirement for Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications—Canadian Commercial Corporation—
(
(
(
(
(B) The contracting officer may specify a higher threshold in paragraph (b) of the clause 252.215–7004.
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) The Canadian Commercial Corporation is not exempt from the requirement to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as defined in FAR 2.101. In accordance with FAR 15.403–3(a)(1)(ii), the contracting officer shall require submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data from the offeror, to the extent necessary to determine a fair and reasonable price.
(i) No further approval is required to request data other than certified cost or pricing data from the Canadian Commercial Corporation in the following circumstances:
(A) In a solicitation for a sole source acquisition that is—
(
(
(B) If the Canadian Commercial Corporation submits the only offer in response to a competitive solicitation that meets the thresholds specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section.
(C) For modifications that exceed $150,000 in contracts that meet the criteria in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(D) In competitive solicitations in which data other than certified cost or pricing data are required from all offerors.
(ii) In any circumstances other than those specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, the contracting officer shall only require data other than certified cost or pricing data from the Canadian Commercial Corporation if the head of the contracting activity, or designee no lower than two levels above the contracting officer, determines that data other than certified cost or pricing data are needed (or in the case of modifications that it is reasonably certain that data other than certified cost or pricing data will be needed) in order to determine that the price is fair and reasonable) (see FAR 15.403–3(a).
This clause, in lieu of FAR 52.215–21, applies only if award is to the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
As prescribed at 215.408(4), use the following provision:
(a) After initial submission of offers, the Offeror agrees to submit any subsequently requested additional cost or pricing data if the Contracting Officer notifies the Offeror that—
(1) Only one offer was received; and
(2) Additional cost or pricing data is required in order to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable or to comply with the statutory requirement for certified cost or pricing data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and FAR 15.403–3).
(b)
(1) If the Contracting Officer notifies the Offeror that additional cost or pricing data are required in accordance with paragraph (a) of this clause, the data shall be certified unless an exception applies (FAR 15.403–1(b)).
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A) For catalog items, a copy of or identification of the catalog and its date, or the appropriate pages for the offered items, or a statement that the catalog is on file in the buying office to which the proposal is being submitted. Provide a copy or describe current discount policies and price lists (published or unpublished),
(B) For market-priced items, the source and date or period of the market quotation or other basis for market price, the base amount,
(C) For items included on an active Federal Supply Service Multiple Award Schedule contract, proof that an exception has been granted for the schedule item.
(3) The Offeror grants the Contracting Officer or an authorized representative the right to examine, at any time before award, books, records, documents, or other directly pertinent records to verify any request for an exception under this provision, and the reasonableness of price. For items priced using catalog or market prices, or law or regulation, access does not extend to cost or profit information or other data relevant solely to the Offeror's determination of the prices to be offered in the catalog or marketplace.
(4)
(i) The Offeror shall prepare and submit certified cost or pricing data and supporting attachments in accordance with the instructions contained in Table 15–2 of FAR 15.408, which is incorporated by reference with the same force and effect as though it were inserted here in full text. The instructions in Table 15–2 are incorporated as a mandatory format to be used, unless the Contracting Officer and the Offeror agree to a different format.
(ii) As soon as practicable after agreement on price, but before contract award (except for unpriced actions such as letter contracts), the offeror shall submit a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, as prescribed by FAR 15.406–2.
(c) If the Offeror is the Canadian Commercial Corporation, certified cost or pricing data are not required. If the Contracting Officer notifies the Canadian Commercial Corporation that additional data other than certified cost or pricing data are required in accordance with 225.870–4(c), the Canadian Commercial Corporation shall obtain and provide the following:
(1) Profit rate or fee (as applicable).
(2) Analysis provided by Public Works and Government Services Canada to the Canadian Commercial Corporation to determine a fair and reasonable price (comparable to the analysis required at FAR 15.404–1).
(3) Data other than certified cost or pricing data necessary to permit a determination by the U.S. Contracting Officer that the proposed price is fair and reasonable
(4) As specified in FAR 15.403–3(a)(4), an offeror who does not comply with a requirement to submit data that the U.S. Contracting Officer has deemed necessary to determine price reasonableness or cost realism is ineligible for award unless the head of the contracting activity determines that it is in the best interest of the Government to make the award to that offeror.
(d) If negotiations are conducted, the negotiated price should not exceed the offered price.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Interim rule.
DoD is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act regarding private sector notification of in-sourcing actions.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2012–D036 using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Annette Gray, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060. Telephone 571–372–6093; facsimile 571–372–6101.
This interim rule revises DFARS 237.102–79 to implement section 938 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 regarding private sector notification of in-sourcing actions.
Section 938 of the NDAA requires the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for the timely notification of any contractor who performs a function that the Secretary plans to convert (in-source) to performance by DoD civilian employees. A written notification will be provided to affected incumbent contractors within 20 business days of the contracting officer's receipt of a decision by the cognizant component in-sourcing program official to in-source services. The notification will summarize why the services are being insourced and must be coordinated with the component's in-sourcing program official. A copy of the notification will be provided to the congressional defense committees.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
DoD does not expect this interim rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This action implements section 938 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 regarding private sector notification of in-sourcing actions. Section 938 of the NDAA requires the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for the timely notification of any contractor that performs a function that the Secretary plans to convert (in-source) to performance by DoD civilian employees and to also provide the congressional defense committees a copy of any such notification.
The interim rule will apply to all small business concerns that have contracts with DoD agencies that are being in-sourced. The most recent data from the DoD Office of Small Business Programs for fiscal years 2009 thru 2012 shows an average of 59,362 small business concerns have contracts with DoD. The degree of potential impact of this rule to those concerns, however, is unknown since there is no way to gauge in advance the extent of any future in-sourcing decisions.
There are no projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements associated with this rule. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. DoD has not identified any alternatives that would fulfill the requirements of the statute and reduce impact on small businesses. Any impact of the rule is expected to be beneficial to small businesses, by giving them timely notification of planned in-sourcing actions.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities. DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 610 (DFARS Case 2012–D036), in correspondence.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707(d), that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this rule on an interim basis without prior opportunity for public comment. This action is necessary to implement section 938 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, which requires DoD to provide notification to the private sector of in-sourcing action determinations. Section 938 requires the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for the timely notification of any incumbent contractor who performs a function that the Secretary plans to convert (in-source) to performance by DoD civilian employees. The notification must also be provided to the congressional defense committees. In-sourcing decisions may have a significant economic effect on firms that have contracts with DoD. Firms that are not notified on a timely basis of an in-sourcing determination that impacts them have less time to prepare for lost revenue and to make staffing adjustments. The rule, in addition to ensuring that there will be timely notification to affected contractors, should help facilitate a more seamless transition in services when implementing in-sourcing requirements. Nonetheless, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707 and FAR 1.501–3(b), DoD will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 237 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2463, contracting officers shall provide written notification to affected incumbent contractors of Government in-sourcing determinations. Notification shall be provided within 20 business days of the contracting officer's receipt of a decision from the cognizant component in-sourcing program official. The notification will summarize the requiring official's final determination as to why the service is being in-sourced and shall be coordinated with the component's in-sourcing program official. No formal hiring or contract-related actions may be initiated prior to such notification, except for preliminary internal actions associated with hiring or contract modification. The memorandum on private sector notification requirements in support of in-sourcing actions is available at PGI 237.1, under the Supplemental Information tab.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove the Director of Defense Security Cooperation Agency from the approval process for waiver or reduction of charges for the use of Government property on work for foreign governments or international organizations.
Annette Gray, telephone 571–372–6093.
DoD is revising the DFARS to implement a policy that will allow contracting officers to approve requests for waiver or reduction of rental charges for the use of Government property on work for foreign governments or international organizations. Over the past year the Director of Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has seen a significant increase in the number of requests with extremely low dollar values over the rental period. Currently, DSCA is required to approve requests in which the agency has no equities. This final rule will allow the contracting officer to process the request for waiver or reduction of charges for the use of Government property on work for foreign governments or international organizations without a separate review by DSCA. Removing DSCA from the approval process will expedite contractors' requests, while still protecting the interests of the Government.
Publication of proposed regulations, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute, which applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because the changes are not substantive and only modify the internal operating procedures of DoD.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501–1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 245 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(3) * * *
(ii) Requests for waiver or reduction of charges for the use of Government property on work for foreign governments or international organizations shall be submitted to the contracting officer, who is authorized to approve the requests in consultation with the appropriate functional specialist.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add Croatia as a new designated country under the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA). Croatia joined the European Union, which is a party to the WTO GPA, on July 1, 2013.
Ms. Annette Gray, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060. Telephone 571–372–6093; facsimile 571–372–6101.
The European Union is a party to the WTO GPA and has assumed rights and obligations under the WTO GPA on behalf of its member states. On July 1, 2013, Croatia became a member of the European Union. Therefore, the European Union has committed to assume rights and obligations on behalf of Croatia under the WTO GPA. On June 27, 2012, the WTO Committee on Government Procurement accepted the European Union notification indicating Croatia's coverage. The United States, which is also a party to the WTO GPA, has agreed to waive discriminatory purchasing requirements for eligible products and suppliers of Croatia (78 FR 60368).
Therefore, this rule adds Croatia to the list of World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement countries wherever it appears in the DFARS, as part of the definition of “designated country.”
“Publication of proposed regulations”, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501–1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does apply, because the rule affects the response of an offeror that is offering a product of Croatia to the information collection requirements in the provisions at DFARS 252.225–7020, due to the changed definition of “designated country” at DFARS 252.225–7021. The offeror no longer needs to list a product from Croatia under “other end products,” because Croatia is now a designated country. This information collection requirement is currently approved under OMB clearances 0704–0229. The impact, however, is negligible.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement the United States—Panama Trade Promotion Agreement. This Trade Promotion Agreement is a free trade agreement that provides for mutually non-discriminatory treatment of eligible products and services from Panama.
Ms. Amy Williams, Telephone 571–372–6106.
DoD published an interim rule in the
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the Department of Defense only applies the trade agreements to the non-defense items listed at DFARS 225.401–70, and acquisitions that are set aside or
This rule affects the certification and information collection requirements in the provisions at DFARS 252.225–7020 and 252.225–7035 and the clause at 252.225–7013, currently approved under OMB Control Number 0704–229, titled Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement part 225, Foreign Acquisition, and related clauses, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The impact, however, is negligible, because it is just a question of under which category offered goods from Panama would be listed and inclusion of products of Panama in the definition of “eligible products” in acquisitions that are equal to or exceed $202,000. The rule also affects DFARS 252.225–7018, which is a variant of the Buy American-trade agreements certifications already approved, which was issued as an interim rule under DFARS Case 2011–D046 (76 FR 78858, December 20, 2011).
Government procurement.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR part 252, which was published at 77 FR 68699 on November 16, 2012, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
As prescribed in
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Supplemental proposed determination.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has preliminarily determined that wine chillers and other residential refrigeration products that incorporate a compressor but do not meet the current regulatory definitions for electric refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer, qualify for coverage under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) as amended. This proposal also covers residential ice makers. Today's notice supplements an earlier proposed determination in which DOE tentatively concluded that residential refrigeration products that do not incorporate a compressor should be covered by energy conservation standards. As part of its review of residential refrigeration products generally, DOE is soliciting public comment on the feasibility of covering compressor-based miscellaneous residential refrigeration products based on the same criteria that had been evaluated earlier for non-compressor based residential refrigeration products.
DOE will accept written comments, data, and information on this notice, but no later than December 2, 2013.
The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, including
For further information on how to submit or review public comments or view hard copies of the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or email:
Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1317. Email:
In the Office of General Counsel, contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email:
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291,
EPCA specifies a list of covered consumer products that includes refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Although EPCA did not define any of these products, it specified that the extent of DOE's coverage would apply to those refrigerator, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that can be operated by alternating current (AC) electricity, are not designed to be used without doors, and include a compressor and condenser as an integral part of the cabinet assembly. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA did not preclude or otherwise foreclose the possibility that other consumer refrigeration products, such as those residential refrigeration products addressed in today's notice, could also be covered if they satisfy certain prerequisites.
Those prerequisites, when met, permit the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products. For a given product to be classified as a covered product, the Secretary must determine that (1) covering that product is either necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA and (2) the average annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kWh per year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)).
With respect to the terms “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer,” DOE had defined these items in terms of their ability to safely store fresh food. In so doing, the agency has amended the definitions of “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer” in 10 CFR 430.2 to separate them from other miscellaneous residential refrigeration products such as wine chillers. DOE established this
When attempting to cover additional product types, DOE must first determine whether the criteria described above in 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1) are met. Once those criteria have been satisfied, the Secretary may begin to prescribe energy conservation standards for a covered product. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p). In order to set standards for a given product that has been added as a newly covered product pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1), the Secretary must determine that four additional criteria are met. First, the average per household energy use within the United States by the products of such type (or class) exceeded 150 kilowatt-hours (kWh) (or its British thermal unit (Btu) equivalent) for any 12-month period ending before such determination. Second, the aggregate household energy use within the United States by products of such type (or class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 kilowatt-hours (or its Btu equivalent) for any such 12-month period. Third, a substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of such type (or class) is technologically feasible. And fourth, the application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such type (or class) is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type (or class) that achieve the maximum energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)).
In addition to the above, if DOE issues a final determination that miscellaneous residential refrigeration products are covered products, DOE will consider test procedures for these products and will determine if these products satisfy the required criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1) prior to setting any energy conservation standards for them.
On November 8, 2011, DOE published a proposed coverage determination for non-compression equipped residential refrigeration products in anticipation of a rulemaking to address these products and related residential refrigeration products. 76 FR 69147. On February 23, 2012, DOE began a scoping process to set potential energy conservation standards and test procedures for wine chillers, non-compressor equipped residential refrigeration products, and residential icemakers, by publishing a notice of public meeting, and providing a framework document that addressed potential standards and test procedure rulemakings. 77 FR 7547. Since that time, DOE has determined that coverage for these products should treat vapor compression wine chillers, non-vapor compression refrigeration products, hybrid refrigeration products, and residential ice makers as a combined product type distinct from the types of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers currently covered by EPCA. DOE reached this determination after evaluating the various information it had been able to collect and the comments submitted by interested parties in response to the earlier notices. If, after further public comment submitted in response to today's notice, DOE determines that coverage of these products is warranted, DOE will consider setting both test procedures and energy conservation standards for these products, which would proceed in the same manner described in the proposed determination published on November 8, 2011. See 76 FR at 69149.
DOE is proposing to adopt a determination that would extend coverage to all residential refrigeration products that are not currently addressed by those provisions regulating the energy efficiency of residential refrigeration products (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)). DOE is considering this course of action to examine the feasibility of ensuring that these products achieve a minimum level of efficiency, while meeting the prescribed statutory prerequisites. As a result, those products that (1) are not capable of reaching the requisite temperature for safe food storage (i.e. 39 °F), (2) do not include a condenser and compressor as an integral part of the product's cabinet assembly, or (3) are designed solely for the production and storage of ice, would, if adopted by DOE, be treated as covered products.
DOE seeks feedback from interested parties on this proposed scope of coverage.
The following sections describe DOE's tentative evaluation of whether miscellaneous residential refrigeration products fulfill the EPCA criteria for being added as covered products. As stated previously, DOE may classify a consumer product as a covered product if (1) classifying products of such type as covered products is necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; and (2) the average annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (or its Btu equivalent) per year. 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1).
In DOE's tentative view, the coverage of miscellaneous residential refrigeration products is both necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA. These products consume energy generated from limited energy supplies and their regulation would be likely to result in the improvement of their energy efficiency. Accordingly, establishing standards for these products fall squarely within the overall statutory goals set out in EPCA to: (1) Conserve energy supplies through energy conservation programs; and (2) provide for improved energy efficiency of major appliances and certain other consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6201)
As discussed in the November 2011 proposed determination, DOE is currently considering initiating an
DOE also notes that, with respect to the potential for labeling requirements to serve as an adequate inducement for manufacturers to produce—and consumers to purchase—energy efficient residential refrigeration products, DOE does not currently have sufficient information to determine whether such an approach would be likely to satisfy this condition. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)(D). While DOE plans to investigate this issue with respect to any proposed rule that it may issue, the agency seeks information on this matter to help it ascertain the effectiveness of such an approach with respect to the residential refrigeration products addressed by today's notice.
DOE estimated that the average household energy use for vapor compression wine chillers, the primary types of residential refrigeration products that do not incorporate a compressor (thermoelectric and absorption wine chillers and refrigerators), residential ice makers, and hybrid refrigeration products (consisting of both a wine chiller and a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer or freezer). DOE found no evidence that non-vapor compression freezers are used in U.S. households, so energy use estimates for these products are not provided.
DOE conducted testing on eight vapor compression wine chillers with rated capacities of 17, 48, 50, 57, 132, and 147 bottles. These products were tested using the test procedures prescribed by the California Energy Commission (CEC) (2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, CEC–400–2012–019–CMF, Table A–1, p. 70). The measured energy consumption of these products ranged from 161 kWh to 480 kWh.
DOE compared the energy consumption of two vapor compression wine chillers measured in the field with the maximum allowable energy use for products of their size, as required under the California Energy Commission (CEC) standard for automatic defrost wine chillers, and found that the field energy use was lower by approximately one-half. DOE also conducted closed-door testing of eight vapor compression wine chillers in typical room-temperature conditions of 72 °F and found that the energy use for this condition was also on average about half (46 percent) the energy use measured in 90 °F ambient conditions. This observation suggests that if the usage factor for vapor compression wine chillers (the factor applied to the actual energy use measured in a 90 °F closed-door test to obtain a result representative of typical room conditions) did not consider the impact of door openings, it should be 0.46 rather than the 0.85 factor used in the CEC test procedure. If consideration is given for some limited number of door openings, a usage factor equal to 0.55 may be appropriate—this factor is consistent with an assumption that the energy use associated with door openings is equal to roughly one-fifth of the closed-door energy use.
Based on limited field data and laboratory testing at different ambient temperature conditions, DOE believes the energy use estimates based on the current CEC test procedure for these products are high. As discussed above, use of the 0.55 usage factor appears to be more appropriate than the 0.85 usage factor prescribed by the current CEC test. Hence, in order to estimate field energy use for wine chillers, DOE adjusted the reported energy use of wine chillers (which is based on the CEC test procedure) by dividing the reported energy use by 0.85 and multiplying by 0.55.
DOE acquired data on the distribution of vapor compression wine chiller internal volumes (or capacities) found in U.S. households from a study that used online surveys.
The online surveys in the study also provided information on the saturation of vapor compression wine chillers found in U.S. households. Using these data, DOE found a market saturation rate of 1.60% for vapor compression wine chillers, yielding a national stock estimate of 1,860,000. Together with the above information on the average annual energy consumption of vapor compression wine chillers, DOE estimates the national energy consumption of vapor compression wine chillers to be 0.50 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year.
Finally, the online surveys provided data on the distribution of ages of wine chillers (both vapor compression and thermoelectric). From these data, DOE derived an estimate of the lifetime of wine chillers of approximately 4.5 years. Together with the above estimate of the national stock of vapor compression wine chillers, DOE estimates annual sales of vapor compression wine chillers at 410,000 units.
This section provides an update to the estimates of energy use by residential thermoelectric refrigeration products that DOE provided in the notice of proposed determination published on November 2011.
DOE also acquired energy consumption data from six thermoelectric wine chillers measured under field conditions (two in residential homes and four in an office with an average ambient temperature of approximately 70 °F), and gathered energy use data for 35 thermoelectric wine chillers from manufacturer and/or retailer Web sites. (TE CC, No. 9) Taken together, these products had rated capacities from 0.6 to 4.9 cubic feet, with average annual energy use ranging from 183 to 803 kWh.
Including the previously discussed laboratory test data for three units, the thermoelectric wine chiller data represented 44 individual measurements, shown in Table 1. DOE developed a linear regression using all data weighted equally:
The online surveys in the study described in section IV.B.1 provided information on the distribution of thermoelectric wine chiller capacities. Using the average capacity of thermoelectric wine chillers from these data (1.51 cubic feet), and the above linear regression of unit energy consumption versus capacity, DOE estimated the average annual energy consumption of thermoelectric wine chillers to be 348 kWh. Note that this represents 30 percent greater energy use than the vapor compression wine chiller average, whereas the average product volume is 58 percent less than the average for vapor compression wine chillers.
The online surveys also provided saturation data for thermoelectric wine chillers found in U.S. households. Using these data, DOE found a saturation rate of 9.0% for thermoelectric wine chillers, yielding a national stock estimate of 10,500,000. Together with the above information on the average annual energy consumption of thermoelectric wine chillers, DOE estimates national energy consumption of thermoelectric wine chillers to be 3.64 TWh per year.
Using the estimate of the lifetime of wine chillers described above (4.5 years) along with the above estimate of the national stock of thermoelectric wine chillers, DOE estimates annual sales of these products at 2,300,000 units.
Very little energy consumption information was available for non-vapor compression refrigerators. DOE tested two thermoelectric refrigerators at ambient temperatures of both 72 °F and 90 °F. Neither product was able to maintain a 39 °F compartment temperature in the 90 °F condition, and only one of the two was able to maintain this compartment temperature in the 72 °F condition. Estimating the expected energy use of such products, if used in the field, is complicated by the inability of the products to maintain the compartment temperature. However, DOE estimated that the average annual energy consumption in field use would be 566 kWh.
The online surveys conducted as part of the study described in the previous sections provided saturation data for thermoelectric refrigerators found in U.S. households. Using these data, DOE found a market saturation rate of 2.5% for thermoelectric refrigerators, yielding a national stock estimate of 2,900,000. Together with the above information on the average annual energy consumption of thermoelectric refrigerators, DOE estimates national annual energy consumption of thermoelectric wine chillers to be 1.64 TWh.
However, the estimated saturation rate of thermoelectric refrigerators is uncertain, ranging from 1.1% to 3.8%. This uncertainty results in national stock estimates that range between 1,200,000 and 4,400,000, and national annual energy consumption estimates that range from 0.68 to 2.49 TWh.
DOE was unable to obtain data providing an estimate of the lifetime of thermoelectric refrigerators. Therefore, using the estimate of the lifetime of wine chillers described above (4.5 years) as a proxy, along with the central estimate of the national stock of thermoelectric refrigerators, DOE estimates annual sales of these products at 600,000 units.
This section provides an update to the estimates of energy use by residential thermoelectric refrigeration products that DOE provided in the November 2011 notice of proposed determination.
The online survey data that DOE acquired from the study discussed in the previous sections provided no evidence indicating absorption-based wine chillers or other refrigeration products are used in homes. However, this technology is commonly used by the hotel industry. DOE estimated that the total stock of absorption refrigeration products in hotels, based on data from Dometic Corporation (a provider of specially-designed refrigerators for, among other things, the storage of wine), is approximately 400,000 units. (Dometic Group Company Presentation 2011–03–15, No. 7 at pp. 40, 42)
Information provided on manufacturer Web sites regarding absorption product energy use cited values between 207 and 730 kWh per year, but did not clarify which test procedures were used to determine these values and did not indicate the operating temperature ranges of the advertised products. (Dometic Screenshots, No. 8) However, DOE measured the energy use of a 1.4 cubic foot absorption refrigerator using closed-door tests in both 72 °F and 90 °F ambient temperature conditions. The unit was not able to maintain a 39 °F compartment temperature in the 90 °F condition. For the 72 °F condition, the unit was able to maintain a compartment temperature below 39 °F. Not including any usage factor adjustment, the measured energy use was 461 kWh. Applying a usage adjustment factor for door openings of 1.2, the projected field energy use of such a product would be 553 kWh. As discussed previously, this usage adjustment factor may be appropriate for wine chillers, but it is unclear whether it adequately accounts for door openings in refrigerators.
Together with the above energy use estimate, and assuming that the Dometic estimate represents the national stock of these units, DOE estimated national annual energy use of absorption refrigeration products to be 0.22 TWh.
DOE was unable to obtain data providing an estimate of the lifetime of absorption refrigeration products. Using the estimate of the lifetime of wine chillers described above (4.5 years) as a proxy, along with the above estimate of the national stock of absorption refrigeration products, DOE estimates annual sales of these products at 90,000 units.
For the purposes of this discussion, the term “hybrid” refers to any product that includes compartments designed for storage at warmer temperatures than fresh food compartments and that otherwise serves the functions of a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer. DOE conducted an online manufacturer model search for hybrid refrigeration products, and found a total of potentially up to 23 unique models, including 21 hybrid refrigerator-wine chillers (one manual defrost unit and 20 automatic defrost units) and two hybrid freezer-wine chillers. From these data, DOE determined that the average capacity of hybrid refrigerator-wine chillers was 7.4 cubic feet, and the average annual energy consumption of hybrid refrigerator-wine chillers was 415 kWh—these averages are based on the information provided for two units by manufacturer Web sites (Hybrid U-Line, No. 11 and Hybrid Vinotemp, No. 12, p. 2) and a third from the petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure of Sanyo E&E Corporation for a hybrid wine chiller/beverage center (77 FR 19654 (April 2, 2012)). For the two hybrid freezer-wine chiller models, the average unit capacity was 12.6 cubic feet, and the upper limit to the annual energy consumption was 413 kWh based on information provided for one unit by a manufacturer Web site.
The online surveys from the study discussed in the previous sections provided market saturation data for hybrid refrigeration products found in U.S. households. Using these data, DOE found a saturation rate of 3.1% for hybrid refrigerator-wine chillers and 0.8% for hybrid freezer-wine chillers, yielding national stock estimates of 3,600,000 hybrid refrigerator-wine chillers and 900,000 hybrid freezer-wine chillers.
Together with the above information on the average annual energy consumption of hybrid refrigeration products, DOE estimates the national annual energy consumption of hybrid refrigerator-wine chillers to be 1.49 TWh, and of hybrid freezer-wine chillers to be 0.37 TWh.
DOE was unable to obtain data providing an estimate of the lifetime of hybrid refrigeration products. Using the estimated lifetimes of refrigerators (17 years) and freezers (22 years) from the 2011 Final Rule for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers (76 FR 57516–57612) as proxies, along with the above estimate of the national stocks of hybrid refrigeration products, DOE estimates annual sales to be 200,000 hybrid refrigerator-wine chillers and 40,000 hybrid freezer-wine chillers.
DOE measured the energy use of a portable and a non-portable ice maker in typical room temperature conditions. The energy use of the portable ice maker was 139 kWh. This includes applying a 50% usage factor to account for the expectation that the unit would not be plugged in for the entire year. The energy use of the non-portable ice maker was 842 kWh. Both of these measurements incorporate energy use associated both with ice production and ice storage. In addition, the energy use associated with ice production is based on an estimated production amount of 4 pounds of ice per day. (For the portable ice maker, this estimate applies only during times when the unit is plugged in.)
DOE also acquired data on the numbers and types of residential ice makers found in U.S. households from the online surveys conducted as part of the study discussed in the previous sections. The data indicate that 69% of residential ice makers are portable units, with the remainder being non-portable built-in or freestanding units. Because data were unavailable on the fraction of the year when such portable units are plugged in and making ice, DOE estimated that the average annual usage factor was 50%. Using the data described above, DOE estimated that the average annual energy use of residential ice makers was 357 kWh.
The online surveys in the study provided information on the saturation of residential ice makers found in U.S. households. Using these data, DOE found a saturation rate of 4.6% for residential ice makers, yielding a national stock estimate of 5,500,000. Together with the above information on the average annual energy consumption of residential ice makers, DOE estimates the national energy consumption of residential ice makers to be 2.0 TWh per year.
However, both the estimated numbers and annual energy use of residential ice makers is uncertain. The estimated saturation rate ranges from 1.7% to
Finally, the online surveys discussed in previous sections provided data on the age distribution of residential ice makers. From these data, DOE derived an estimate of the lifetime of residential ice makers of approximately 1.7 years. The online surveys discussed in previous sections provided information on the age distribution of wine chillers. From these data, DOE derived an estimate of the lifetime of wine chillers of approximately 4.5 years, which is comparable to the estimated lifetime of compact refrigerators of 5.6 years used in the 2011 Final Rule for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers (76 FR 57516–57612). DOE believes that the derived lifetime of residential ice makers may be unrealistically low when compared to the estimated lifetimes of wine chillers and compact refrigerators, so it has adopted a range in its estimate of annual sales of these products by using the lifetime assumptions of both residential ice makers and wine chillers. Therefore, using the central value for the national stock of residential icemakers of 5,500,000 units and the aforementioned high and low values of product lifetime (1.7 years and 4.5 years, respectively), DOE estimates that annual sales of these products may range from 1,200,000 to 3,200,000 units.
Based upon its evaluations of vapor compression wine chillers, the three primary types of residential refrigeration products that do not incorporate a compressor (i.e. thermoelectric-based wine chillers, thermoelectric-based refrigerators and absorption-based refrigeration products), the hybrid refrigeration products described in this notice, and residential ice makers, DOE has been able to develop estimates of their annual energy use that indicate that these products on average consume significantly more than 100 kWh annually. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the average annual per household energy use for miscellaneous residential refrigeration products is likely to exceed the 100 kWh threshold set by EPCA. Moreover, DOE has determined that the aggregate annual national energy use of these products is 9.9 TWh, which exceeds the 4.2 TWh minimum threshold set by EPCA in order to establish energy conservation standards for a product that the Secretary chooses to add for regulatory coverage.
DOE has reviewed its proposed determination of wine chillers and residential non-compressor refrigeration products under the following Executive Orders and acts.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that coverage determinations do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this proposed action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE reviewed today's proposed determination under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. If adopted, today's proposed determination would set no standards; they would only positively determine that future standards may be warranted and should be explored in an energy conservation standards and test procedure rulemaking. Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in the context of such rulemakings. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
This proposed determination that miscellaneous residential refrigeration products meet the criteria for covered products for which the Secretary may prescribe energy conservation standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) will impose no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501,
In this notice, DOE proposes to positively determine that future standards may be warranted and that environmental impacts should be explored in an energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has determined that review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Public Law 91–190, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321,
Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, “Federalism” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to assess carefully the
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the duty to: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the following: (1) The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether these standards are met, or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE determined that this proposed determination would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act of 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies to review most disseminations of information they make to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's proposed determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with the applicable policies in those guidelines.
E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates a final rule or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the proposal is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that today's regulatory action proposing to determine that miscellaneous residential refrigeration products meet the criteria for covered products for
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (January 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. DOE has determined that the analyses conducted for this rulemaking do not constitute “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” 70 FR 2667 (January 14, 2005). The analyses were subject to pre-dissemination review prior to issuance of this notice.
DOE will determine the appropriate level of review that would be applicable to any future rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for miscellaneous residential refrigeration products.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed determination no later than the date provided at the beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the comments received and determine whether miscellaneous residential refrigeration products are covered products under EPCA.
Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's email address for this proposed determination should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Submissions should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible comments should include the electronic signature of the author. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document should have all the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligations concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting persons which would result from public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed determination. DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments from interested parties on the following issues related to the proposed determination for miscellaneous residential refrigeration products:
(1) Is the proposed scope of coverage for miscellaneous residential refrigeration products sufficient or are there aspects to this proposed scope that require modification?
(2) DOE seeks information on the types of vapor compression and non-compressor residential refrigeration products currently being marketed that would be addressed by the coverage proposed in this notice, particularly whether such products are distributed to any significant extent for uses other than as wine or beverage chillers.
(3) DOE seeks stock and shipment data for residential wine chillers cooled by vapor compression and for residential refrigeration products that do not incorporate a compressor, segregated by different product types, including any details regarding trends in shipments for each respective type of product.
(4) DOE seeks information regarding energy test procedures suited for residential wine chillers cooled by vapor compression and for residential refrigeration products that do not incorporate a compressor.
(5) DOE seeks information regarding the energy use of all of the different products that would be affected by today's proposed coverage determination.
(6) DOE seeks calculations and accompanying values for household and national energy consumption of the products that would be affected by today's notice of proposed coverage determination.
(7) DOE seeks information as to what technologies, if any, would be available to improve the energy efficiency of residential vapor compression wine chillers, residential refrigeration products that do not incorporate a compressor, and residential ice makers. To the extent that no technologies are readily available to improve the efficiency of these products, DOE seeks information on the factors that may be limiting the development of those technologies.
(8) DOE seeks information regarding the factors that would cause a manufacturer to select a cooling technology other than vapor compression for a residential refrigeration product, including design and production costs, energy use, product performance, consumer acceptance, and any other relevant factors.
(9) DOE seeks information, including supporting data, regarding whether labeling-related efforts applied to the residential refrigeration products addressed in today's notice would be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce and consumers and other persons to purchase, residential refrigeration products that achieve the minimum energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
The Department is interested in receiving views concerning other relevant issues that participants believe would affect DOE's ability to establish test procedures and energy conservation standards for miscellaneous residential refrigeration products. The Department invites all interested parties to submit in writing by December 2, 2013, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to consideration of a determination for miscellaneous residential refrigeration products.
After the expiration of the period for submitting written statements, the Department will consider all comments and additional information that is obtained from interested parties or through further analyses, and it will prepare a final determination. If DOE determines that miscellaneous residential refrigeration products qualify as covered products, DOE will consider initiating rulemakings to develop test procedures and energy conservation standards for miscellaneous residential refrigeration products. Members of the public will be given an opportunity to submit written and oral comments on any proposed test procedure and standards.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Bombardier Inc. Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the materials used to fabricate the fuselage, which may affect fire propagation during an in-flight fire. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before December 16, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA–2013–0819] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2195; facsimile 425–227–1232.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Inc. applied for a type certificate for their new Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes. The Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with pressurized cabins, and they share an identical supplier base and significant common design elements. The fuselages are aluminum alloy material, blended double-bubble design, sized for nominal 5 abreast seating. Each airplane's powerplant includes two under-wing Pratt and Whitney PW1524G ultra-high bypass, geared turbofan engines. Flight controls are fly-by-wire flight with two passive/uncoupled side sticks. Avionics include five landscape primary cockpit displays. The dimension of the airplanes encompasses a wingspan of 115 feet; a height of 37.75 feet; and a length of 114.75 feet for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 127 feet for the Model BD–500–1A11. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 125 for the Model BD–500–1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD–500–1A11. Maximum takeoff thrust is 21,000 pounds for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 23,300 pounds for the Model BD–500–1A11. The range is 3,394 miles (5,463 kilometers) for both model airplanes. The maximum operating altitude is 41,000 feet for both model airplanes.
The Bombardier BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes will be fabricated using aluminum-lithium materials. The performance of airplanes consisting of a conventional aluminum fuselage in an inaccessible in-flight fire scenario is understood based on service history and extensive intermediate and large-scale fire testing. The fuselage itself does not contribute to in-flight fire propagation. This may not be the case for an all-aluminum-lithium fuselage. Experience has shown that eliminating the fire propagation of the interior materials and insulation materials tends to increase survivability since other aspects of in-flight fire safety (e.g., toxic gas emission and smoke obscuration) are typically by-products of the propagating fire. The Bombardier BD–
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–129 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The fuselage will be fabricated using aluminum-lithium materials instead of conventional aluminum. This new type of material must provide protection against an in-flight fire propagating along the surface of the fuselage.
The Bombardier BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes will be fabricated using aluminum-lithium materials. The performance of airplanes consisting of a conventional aluminum fuselage in an inaccessible in-flight fire scenario is understood based on service history and extensive intermediate and large-scale fire testing. Experience has shown that eliminating the fire propagation of the interior materials and insulation materials tends to increase survivability since other aspects of in-flight fire safety (e.g., toxic gas emission and smoke obscuration) are typically by-products of the propagating fire. The fuselage itself does not contribute to in-flight fire propagation. This may not be the case for an all-aluminum-lithium fuselage.
In the past, fatal in-flight fires have originated in inaccessible areas of the airplane where thermal/acoustic insulation located adjacent to the aluminum airplane skin has been the path for flame propagation and fire growth. Concern over the fire performance of thermal/acoustic insulation was initially raised by five incidents in the 1990's, which revealed unexpected flame spread along the insulation film that covered the thermal/acoustic insulation. In all cases, the ignition source was relatively modest and, in most cases, was electrical in origin (e.g., electrical short circuit, arcing caused by chafed wiring, ruptured ballast case).
In 1996, the FAA Technical Center began a program to develop new fire test criteria for insulation films directly relating to in-flight fire resistance. The current test standard at that time was evaluated as well as another small-scale test method that has been used by airplane manufacturers to evaluate flame propagation on thermal/acoustic insulation materials.
An inter-laboratory comparison of these methods revealed a number of deficiencies. A new test method subjecting a material to a pilot flame while the material is heated by a radiant panel was developed. The new radiant panel test method and criteria were specifically established to improve the evaluation of the in-flight fire ignition/flame propagation of thermal/acoustic insulation materials based on real-world fire scenarios. While these tests were developed for thermal/acoustic insulation materials, this same type of test methodology can be used to assess the flammability characteristics of the proposed aluminum-lithium material for the fuselage.
The FAA reviewed the test method proposed by Bombardier Inc. and determined that a larger flame and test article would be necessary to make a determination of the potential flammability of the aluminum-lithium material. It would also be more representative of a real-life fire scenario.
The FAA recently conducted additional testing in our Components Fire Test facility and determined that another way to assess the survivability within the cabin of the Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series is to use the cargo liner flammability test (part III of appendix F to part 25,
The recent FAA tests that were conducted in our Components Fire Test facility used a 6 gallon/hour oil burner, the same apparatus used to determine burnthrough resistance of thermal/acoustic insulation (part VII of appendix F to part 25). The test used 16 by 24 inch Al-Li panels that were installed into a sheet steel subframe, which measured 18 by 32 inches (outside dimensions). The subframe had an opening cut into it, which measured 14.5 by 22.5 inches; this allowed the test panels to be mounted onto the subframe using .250–20 UNC threaded bolts.
The FAA proposes that Bombardier use the test method contained in part VII of appendix F to part 25,
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two models of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Inc. Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes.
1.
2. To demonstrate compliance, the test set-up and methodology must be commensurate with 14 CFR part 25, appendix F, part VII, except the size of the test samples, modifications to the sample holder, and the test methodology would be varied as described below.
3. In demonstrating that the aluminum-lithium material used to fabricate the fuselage has equal or better flammability resistance characteristics than the aluminum alloy sheet typically used as skin material on similar airplanes, the accepted test methods for compliance include:
a. Each test sample must consist of a flat test specimen. A set of three samples of the material must be tested. The size of each sample must be 16 inches by 24 inches by 0.063 inches.
b. The test samples must be installed into a steel sheet subframe with outside dimensions of 18 inches by 32 inches. The subframe must have an opening cut into it of 14.5 inches by 22.5 inches. The tests samples must be mounted onto the subframe using .250–20 UNC threaded bolts.
c. Test specimens must be conditioned at 70 °F ± 5 °F and 55 percent ± 5 percent humidity for at least 24 hours before testing.
4. Demonstration of compliance will be achieved if the material is not ignited during any of the tests.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Bombardier Inc. Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with aluminum-lithium fuselage construction that may provide different levels of protection from post-crash fire threats than similar aircraft constructed from traditional aluminum structure. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before December 16, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2013–0858 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–115 Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2195; facsimile 425–227–1232.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Inc. applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “C-series”). The C-series airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with a pressurized cabin. They share an identical supplier base and significant common design elements. The fuselage is an aluminum alloy material, blended double-bubble design, sized for nominal 5-abreast seating. Each airplane's powerplant
The fuselage of the Bombardier C-series airplanes will be fabricated using aluminum-lithium construction. Structure fabricated from aluminum-lithium may provide different levels of protection from post-crash fuel-fed fire threats than similar aircraft constructed from traditional aluminum structure.
There are no existing regulations that adequately ensure that aluminum-lithium structure offers passengers the same protection from a post-crash fire condition as would a conventional aluminum structure. These proposed special conditions are necessary to ensure that the Bombardier C-series airplanes provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the C-series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–129 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the C-series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the C-series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Bombardier C-series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The fuselage will be fabricated using aluminum-lithium materials instead of conventional aluminum.
The performance of airplanes consisting of a conventional aluminum fuselage is understood based on service history and extensive intermediate and large-scale fire testing. The new aluminum-lithium materials must provide the same levels of protection against post-crash fuel-fed fire threats.
The certification basis for the Bombardier C-series airplanes includes meeting the burn-through requirements defined in § 25.856(b). The Bombardier C-series airplanes are introducing a new material from what has traditionally been shown to be survivable from a toxic standpoint. Toxicity levels from post-crash fire threats are typically more severe than threats generated from an in-flight fire with regards to the quantity level of toxins produced by off-gases from burning materials. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the material being used does not introduce a new hazard that would reduce the survivability of the passengers during a post-crash situation, or provide levels of toxic fumes that would be lethal or incapacitating, thus preventing evacuation of the aircraft in a crash scenario.
Bombardier Inc. will have to demonstrate that aluminum-lithium material does not produce levels of toxic fumes that will reduce the survivability of the passengers or their ability to evacuate when compared to typically constructed aluminum airplanes.
A way of showing acceptable capability is to conduct a laboratory-scale test to assess the survivability characteristics of this non-traditional fuselage material. If negligible amounts of combustion products are produced in this test, the material can be considered acceptable with respect to post crash survivability. A test method developed by the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center should be utilized (Ref. DOT/FAA/AR–TN07/15 dated August 2008).
Related regulations, including §§ 25.853 and 25.856(a), remain valid for this airplane, but they do not reflect the potential threat generated from toxic levels of gases produced from aluminum-lithium materials.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Inc. Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 (C-series) airplanes.
The Bombardier C-series airplanes must show that any toxic levels of gases produced from the aluminum-lithium material are in no way an additional threat to the passengers and their ability to evacuate when compared to a typically constructed aluminum airplane exposed to a post-crash fuel-fed fire.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Learjet Model LJ–200–1A10 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These features are associated with a hybrid construction that uses both composite and metallic materials in the structure for which the crashworthiness responses for occupant safety may not be equivalent to current all-metallic airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the crashworthiness of this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before December 16, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2013–0857 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Freisthler, FAA, Airframe/Cabin Safety, ANM–115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1119; facsimile (425) 227–1320.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On February 9, 2009, Learjet Inc. applied for a type certificate for their new Model LJ–200–1A10 airplane (hereafter referred to as the “Model LJ–200”). The Model LJ–200 is a business class airplane powered by two high-bypass turbine engines with an estimated maximum takeoff weight of 35,550 pounds and an interior configuration for up to 10 passengers.
The current design includes a skin-stringer fuselage and aft fuselage configuration. The pressure fuselage will consist of monolithic carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) skin, with CFRP and metallic frames above floor level, and CFRP longerons and stringers. All substructure will be mechanically fastened to the skin. Fasteners for stringers aligned along the length of the co-cured splice will provide fail-safe capability for the splice. Cabin entry door frames, over-wing exit door frames, and frames below floor level will be metallic. Attachment of pressure bulkheads, windshield frame, and splicing concepts will be adjusted for any skin thickness variation that occurs. The wing consists of resin transfer infusion (RTI) skins with composite spars and metallic ribs. The empennage consists of composite sandwich skins with metallic spars and ribs. The airframe has a sandwich construction for the nose and empennage structures.
There are no existing regulations that adequately address the potential difference between metallic fabricated airplanes and composite fabricated airplanes with regards to impact response characteristics for what are considered survivable crash conditions. The CFRP fuselage constitutes a novel and unusual design feature for a transport category airplane. These special conditions are necessary to ensure a level of safety equivalent to that provided by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Learjet Inc. must show that the Model LJ–200 meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–127 thereto, and 14 CFR part 26, as amended by Amendment 26–1 through 26–2 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model LJ–200 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model LJ–200 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of
The Model LJ–200 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Hybrid construction using both composite and metallic materials in the structure for which the crashworthiness responses for occupant safety may not be equivalent to current all-metallic airplanes.
The Model LJ–200 fuselage is fabricated using carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) skins with aluminum ribs and stringers. This hybrid construction may behave differently from similar, fully-metallic structure due to differences in material ductility, stiffness, failure modes, and energy absorption characteristics. Therefore, the impact response characteristics of the Model LJ–200 must be evaluated to ensure the survivable crashworthiness characteristics are not significantly different than those of a similarly sized airplane fabricated from traditionally used metallic materials.
The FAA and industry have been working together for many years to understand how transport airplane occupant safety can be improved for what are considered survivable accidents. This work has involved examining airplane accidents, conducting tests to simulate crash conditions, and developing analytical modeling of a range of crash conditions, all with the purpose of providing further insight into the factors that can influence occupant safety. Results of this on-going effort have enabled specific changes to regulatory standards and design practices to improve occupant safety. This evolution is reflected in changes to the part 25 emergency landing condition regulations. For example, airplane emergency load factors in § 25.561,
The seat dynamic load conditions were added to the regulations based on FAA and industry tests and a review of accidents. They reflect horizontal and vertical accelerations/time environment generated by previously certificated airplane designs given conditions that were survivable. These tests also demonstrated that the performance of the airframe was acceptable in a dynamic impact event. In the evolution of the regulations, there is at present no specific dynamic regulatory requirement for airplane-level crashworthiness. However, the FAA requires an assessment of each new model airplane to ensure that the airplane will not significantly depart from typical dynamic characteristics found in previously certificated designs.
The nature of the assessment is largely dependent on the similarities and differences between the new type design and previously certificated airplanes. Such an assessment ensures that the level of safety of the new composite designs corresponds to the level of safety achieved with similar metallic designs around which the existing regulations were written. If significant trends in industry warrant change to the existing regulations, the FAA and industry rulemaking process may be used to develop an appropriate dynamic regulatory requirement for airplane level crashworthiness.
The FAA and industry have collected a significant amount of experimental data as well as data from crashes of transport category airplanes that demonstrate a high occupant survival rate at vertical descent velocities up to 30 ft/sec (on a single-aisle airplane). Based on this information, the FAA finds it appropriate and necessary for an assessment of the Model LJ–200 to span a range of airplane vertical descent velocities (up to 30 ft/sec, or that appropriate for a comparable size airplane).
The FAA expects the Model LJ–200 to exhibit similar crashworthiness capabilities under foreseeable survivable impact events as achieved by previously certificated transport category airplanes of similar size and configuration. In order to make this assessment, criteria need to be established by which the similarities and differences between new type designs and previously certificated airplanes may be analytically evaluated. Based on the FAA's evaluation of the intent of existing regulations, the following areas need to be evaluated to demonstrate comparable behavior of the Model LJ–200 design to currently certificated transport category airplanes:
• Retention of items of mass. It must be shown that the occupants, i.e., passengers, flight attendants, and flight crew, will be protected during the impact event from release of seats, overhead bins, and other items of mass due to the impact loads and resultant structural deformation of the supporting airframe and floor structures.
• Maintenance of occupant emergency egress paths. The airframe must not deform such that rapid evacuation of occupants is impeded.
• Maintenance of acceptable acceleration and loads experienced by the occupants.
• Maintenance of a survivable volume. All areas of the airplane occupied for takeoff and landing must be shown to provide a survivable volume during and after the impact event.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Learjet Model LJ–200–1A10. Should Learjet Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Learjet Model LJ–200–1A10 airplanes.
In order to demonstrate an equivalent level of occupant safety and survivability to that provided by previously certificated transport category airplanes of similar size and configuration under foreseeable survivable impact events, Learjet must demonstrate that the Model LJ–200–1A10 meets the following criteria for a range of airplane vertical descent velocities up to 30 ft/sec:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Central Airport, Central, AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Central Airport, Central, AK.
Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2013.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2013–0017; Airspace Docket No. 13–AAL–1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4517.
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 (FAA Docket No. FAA–2013–0017 and Airspace Docket No. 13–AAL–1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters 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 FAA Docket No. FAA–2013–0017 and Airspace Docket No. 13–AAL–1”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. 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 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 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, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Central, AK. Airspace is needed to accommodate the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approaches and departures developed for the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be established within an area 17 miles east and west of the airport and 4 miles north and 9 miles south of the airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (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 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 U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for 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 the 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 modify controlled airspace at Central Airport, Central, AK.
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).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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 bounded by a line beginning at lat. 65°44′11″ N., long. 145°29′55″ W.; to lat. 65°34′00″ N., long. 144°04′28″ W.; to lat. 65°22′44″ N., long. 144°10′35″ W.; to lat. 65°26′43″ N., long. 145°19′38″ W.; thence to the point of origin.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures developed for the airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK.
Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2013.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2013–0017; Airspace Docket No. 13–AAL–1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4517.
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 (FAA Docket No. FAA–2013–0777 and Airspace Docket No. 12–AAL–16) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters 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 FAA Docket No. FAA–2013–0777 and Airspace Docket No. 12–AAL–16”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. 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 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 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, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 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 2.5-mile radius of Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK, with a segment extending from the 2.5-mile radius to 8.5 miles west of the airport. Controlled airspace is needed to accommodate the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approaches and departures developed for the airport and would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (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 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 U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for 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 the 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 modify controlled airspace at Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK.
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).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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.
Within a 2.5-mile radius of the Eagle, AK airport and within 2.5 miles each side of the 290° radial extending from the 2.5-mile radius to 8.5 miles west of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Brevig Mission Airport, Brevig Mission, AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2013.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2012–0078; Airspace Docket No. 12–AAL–1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4517.
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
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2012–0078 and Airspace Docket No. 12–AAL–1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters 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 FAA Docket No. FAA–2012–0078 and Airspace Docket No. 12–AAL–1”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. 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 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 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, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Brevig Mission Airport, Brevig Mission, AK. Controlled airspace extending 2 miles north, 6 miles south, 8 miles southeast and 11 miles northwest of the airport is necessary to accommodate the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport, and would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (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 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 U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for 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 the 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 establish controlled airspace at Brevig Mission Airport, Brevig Mission, AK.
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).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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 line beginning at lat. 65°14′37″ N. long 166°38′26″ W. to lat. 65°13′20″ N. long.166°15′02″ W., to lat. 65°16′35″ N. long. 166°11′17″ W., to lat. 65°28′29″ N. long. 166°45′20″ W., to lat. 65°26′22″ N. long.166°52′31″ W., thence to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class D and E airspace at Kona International Airport at Keahole, Kailua-Kona, HI. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate the Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Localizer (LOC) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also would be adjusted in the respective Class D and E airspace areas, and the airport name will be corrected to Kona International Airport at Keahole. This action, initiated by the biennial review of the Kona airspace area, would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2013.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2013–0622; Airspace Docket No. 13–AWP–10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4537.
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 (FAA Docket No. FAA 2013–0622 and Airspace Docket No. 13–AWP–10) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters 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 FAA Docket No. FAA–2013–0622 and Airspace Docket No. 13–AWP–10”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. 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 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 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, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Kona International Airport at Keahole, Kailua-Kona, HI. The segment of controlled airspace extending from the 7.4-mile radius of the airport is increased from 8.5 miles to 14.5 miles south of the airport to accommodate the RNAV (GPS) and ILS or LOC standard instrument approach procedures. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database for the respective Class D and E airspace areas. The airport formerly called Kailua-Kona, Keahole Airport, Keahole Airport is corrected to Kona International Airport at Keahole. This action was initiated by a biennial review of the airspace and is necessary for the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (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 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 U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
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).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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 the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Kona International Airport at Keahole. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory, Pacific Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.8 miles either side of the 186° bearing of the Kona International Airport at Keahole extending from the 4.3-mile radius of the airport to 5.7 miles south of the airport, and within 4.3 miles either side of the 006° bearing of the airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 11.5 miles north of the airport.
This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory, Pacific Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of the Kona International Airport at Keahole, and within 4.3 miles each side of the 006° bearing of the airport extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 11.5 miles north of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 186° bearing of the airport extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 8.5 miles south of the airport.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period; extension of deadline for submitting notices of intention to appear at public hearings; scheduling of public hearings.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is extending the deadline for submitting comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica for an additional 47 days and extending the deadline for submitting notices of intention to appear at its informal public hearings for an additional 30 days. OSHA also is delaying the start of the public hearings by two weeks.
If you submit scientific or technical studies or other results of scientific research, OSHA requests (but is not requiring) that you also provide the following information where it is available: (1) Identification of the funding source(s) and sponsoring organization(s) of the research; (2) the extent to which the research findings were reviewed by a potentially affected party prior to publication or submission to the docket, and identification of any such parties; and (3) the nature of any financial relationships (
Electronic copies of this
For general information and press inquiries, contact Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of Communications, Room N–3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999; email
OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 12, 2013, for occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica (78 FR 56274). This notice requested written comments by December 11, 2013 and notices of intention to appear at the public hearings by November 12, 2013; as well as established the public hearing to commence on March 4, 2014. Several interested parties have requested an extension of the comment period, explaining that they needed additional time to provide a thorough review and
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
The Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold its first meeting. We, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), established the Committee to advise us on revising and updating our accessibility guidelines issued pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act for transportation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail, and high speed rail). The original first meeting, previously scheduled for October 15 and 16, 2013, did not occur due to the federal government shutdown.
The Committee will meet on November 13, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on November 14, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004–1111. Call-in information and a communication access real-time translation (CART) web streaming link will be posted on the Access Board's Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee Web site page at
Paul Beatty, Office of Technical and Information Services, Access Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004–1111. Telephone number (202) 272–0012 (Voice); (202) 272–0072 (TTY). Electronic mail address:
On May 23, 2013, we published a notice establishing a Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (Committee) to make recommendations to us on matters associated with revising and updating our accessibility guidelines issued pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act for transportation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail, and high speed rail). See 78 FR 30828 (May 23, 2013).
The Committee will hold its first meeting on November 13, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on November 14, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (the original first meeting, previously scheduled in October 15 and 16, 2013, did not occur due to the federal government shutdown). The agenda for the November meeting includes initial remarks, introduction of Committee members, consideration of the Committee's charter and operating procedures, discussion of administrative issues (including establishment of future meeting dates and consideration of adding additional committee members), and discussion of issues for potential consideration by the Committee. The preliminary meeting agenda, along with information about the Committee, is available on our Web site (
Committee meetings will be open to the public and interested persons can attend the meetings and communicate their views. Members of the public will have opportunities to address the Committee on issues of interest to them during public comment periods scheduled on each day of the meeting. Members of groups or individuals who are not members of the Committee may also have the opportunity to participate in subcommittees if subcommittees are formed.
The meetings will be accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, communication access real-time translation (CART), and sign language interpreters will be provided. Persons attending the meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see
Persons wishing to provide handouts or other written information to the Committee are requested to provide electronic formats to Paul Beatty via email at least two business days prior to the meetings so that alternate formats can be distributed to Committee members.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to align it with revisions to the DoD Instruction on operational contract support.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2013–D015, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Meredith Murphy, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060. Telephone 571–372–6098; facsimile 571–372–6101.
DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS to revise and update the prescription and the clause at DFARS 252.225–7040, currently titled “Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States,” to align it with the changes in applicability, terminology, and other revisions made by Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 3020.41, entitled “Operational Contract Support (OCS).” The DoDI was published as an interim rule for public comment and subsequently was published as a final rule on July 1, 2012.
The revisions to DoDI 3020.41 establish policy, assign responsibilities, and provide procedures for OCS, including OCS program management, contract support integration, and integration of defense contractor personnel into contingency operations outside the United States. Additions to, and clarifications of, terminology aid in determining which groups qualify for different types of Government support and are based on improvements in practices and lessons learned in recent contingency operations.
New definitions are proposed to be added to the clause at 252.225–7040. These include “contractors authorized to accompany the Force” (CAAF), “non-CAAF,” and “designated reception site.” These definitions are considered important clarifications as to requirements, status, and entitlement to use facilities. One new element of the proposed rule is the statement at paragraph (b)(3) of the clause that, “when armed for personal protection, contractor personnel are only authorized to use force for personal protection.” This would not be a new policy; rather, it would be a clear, concise statement of the existing policy.
The new clause title is proposed to be “Contractor Personnel Supporting U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States,” and the new clause prescription, at DFARS 225.7402–5(a), adds “As directed by the Secretary of Defense” to the list of circumstances in which the clause is applicable.
The clause addresses at paragraph (c) the types of support available for CAAF personnel and the requirement to have a letter of authorization signed by the contracting officer prior to deployment for each CAAF. In the past, the provision of non-emergency medical and dental care to CAAF personnel has generated considerable confusion. The proposed revision to paragraph (c) would make it clear that only emergency medical and dental care will be provided and only when the CAAF individual is injured while supporting applicable operations. In certain cases, non-emergency care may be provided by field hospital staff, but the contractor will be billed for that non-emergency care.
The predeployment requirements for CAAF personnel would be clarified in paragraph (e) of the clause. In the past, there was some ambiguity about which requirements could be fulfilled once the individual was in theater and which requirements had to be completed prior to deployment, i.e. during predeployment screening.
The requirements for and use of personnel data are covered at paragraph (g) of the clause. Contractors are required to use the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) system to enter and maintain data on their CAAF and non-CAAF personnel (as designated by USD (AT&L) or the combatant commander) supporting deployed U.S. Armed Forces outside the United States. The purpose of SPOT is to provide the Combatant Commander with accurate, real-time information on all personnel within specified geographic combatant command operations areas. In the past, some contractors did not maintain current information on their personnel in SPOT. The proposed revisions to paragraph (e) of the clause would make a contractor's on-going SPOT maintenance requirements clear and specific.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule proposes to update the clause at DFARS 252.225–7040 and its prescription to align the DFARS with the changes in applicability, terminology, and other revisions made by Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 3020.41, entitled Operational Contract Support (OCS). The DoDI “establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for OCS, including OCS program management, contract support integration, and integration of defense contractor personnel into contingency
The proposed rule will impact small businesses with personnel who provide direct support to U.S. Armed Forces personnel deployed outside the United States. Given the concerted effort by the United States to procure products and services from local vendors (see,
However, for those small businesses that do have personnel deployed in support of U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are minimal. The specific requirements are included in paragraph (g) of the clause at DFARS 252.225–7040. The contractor is required to use the web-based Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) system to enter and maintain the data for its CAAF and designated non-CAAF personnel supporting deployed U.S. Armed Forces outside the United States. The purpose of the SPOT system is to enable DoD to keep track of all persons deployed in contingency zones. The information must be entered in SPOT prior to deployment and must be updated during the performance period of the contract as necessary to maintain accurate, up-to-date information. Changes to status of individual contractor personnel relating to their in-theater arrival date and their duty location, to include closing out the deployment with their proper status (e.g. mission complete, killed, wounded) is annotated within the SPOT database.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. The requirement to use the SPOT database is not new to this case. It has been in place for several years and is applied to all sizes of businesses that have personnel deployed in a contingency operation. The SPOT database can be accessed with a laptop and is user friendly to encourage real-time updates of the information provided.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2013–D015), in correspondence.
The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C chapter 35; however, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704–0460, entitled “Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) System,” in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 212, 225, 237, 242, and 252 as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(f) * * *
(xxxix) Use the clause at 252.225–7040, Contractor Personnel Supporting U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States, as prescribed in 225.7402–5(a).
(a) Use the clause at 252.225–7040, Contractor Personnel Supporting U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States, instead of the clause at FAR 52.225–19, Contractor Personnel in a Designated Operational Area or Supporting a Diplomatic or Consular Mission Outside the United States, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, for performance in a designated operational area that authorize contractor personnel to support U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States in—
(1) Contingency operations;
(2) Humanitarian assistance operations;
(3) Other peace operations consistent with Joint Publication 3–07.3;
(4) Other military operations or military exercises, when designated by the combatant commander; or
(5) As directed by the Secretary of Defense.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(b)
(i) Contingency operations;
(ii) Humanitarian assistance operations;
(iii) Other peace operations;
(iv) Other military operations or military exercises, when designated by the Combatant Commander; or
(v) As directed by the Secretary of Defense.
(2) Contract performance in support of U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States may require work in dangerous or austere conditions. Except as otherwise provided in the contract, the Contractor accepts the risks associated with required contract performance in such operations.
(3) When authorized in accordance with paragraph (j) of this clause to carry arms for personal protection, Contractor personnel are only authorized to use force for individual defense.
(4) Unless immune from host nation jurisdiction by virtue of an international agreement or international law, inappropriate use of force by contractor personnel authorized to accompany the U.S. Armed Forces can subject such personnel to United States or host nation prosecution and civil liability (see paragraphs (d) and (j)(3) of this clause).
(5) Service performed by Contractor personnel subject to this clause is not active duty or service under 38 U.S.C. 106 note.
(c) * * *
(2)(i) Generally, CAAF will be afforded emergency medical and dental care if injured while supporting applicable operations. Additionally, non-CAAF employees who are injured while in the vicinity of U.S. Armed Forces will normally receive emergency medical and dental care. Emergency medical and dental care includes medical care situations in which life, limb, or eyesight is jeopardized. Examples of emergency medical and dental care include examination and initial treatment of victims of sexual assault; refills of prescriptions for life-dependent drugs; repair of broken bones, lacerations, infections; and traumatic injuries to the dentition. Hospitalization will be limited to stabilization and short-term medical treatment with an emphasis on return to duty or placement in the patient movement system.
(4) Unless specified elsewhere in this contract, the Contractor is responsible for all other support required for its personnel engaged in the designated operational area under this contract.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) All CAAF deploying in support of an applicable operation are medically, dentally, and psychologically fit for deployment and
(2) * * *
(v) Such employees are required to report offenses alleged to have been committed by or against Contractor personnel to appropriate investigative authorities.
(vi) Such employees will be provided victim and witness protection and assistance.
(g)
(2) The Contractor shall enter the required information about their contractor personnel prior to deployment and shall continue to use the SPOT web-based system at
(h)
(2) The Contractor shall identify all personnel who occupy a position that the Contracting Officer has designated as mission essential and ensure the continuity of essential Contractor services during designated operations.
(3) The Contractor shall ensure that Contractor personnel follow the guidance at paragraph (e)(2)(v) of this clause and any specific Combatant Commander guidance on reporting offenses alleged to have been committed by or against Contractor personnel to appropriate investigative authorities.
(j) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Comply with applicable Combatant Commander and local commander force-protection policies.
(v) Understand that the inappropriate use of force could subject them to U.S. or host-nation prosecution and civil liability.
(o)
(q)
(1) Contingency operations;
(2) Humanitarian assistance operations;
(3) Other peace operations;
(4) Other military operations or military exercises, when designated by the Combatant Commander; or
(5) As directed by the Secretary of Defense.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the public comment period on the proposed rule to list the distinct population segment (DPS) of the North American wolverine (
We will accept public comments until December 2, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Jodi Bush, Field Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601; telephone 406–449–5225;
On February 4, 2013, we published in the
Some commenters thought that wolverine distribution was not restricted by access to snow dens and that wolverine distribution and behavior was better explained by other hypotheses, such as the need for cold places to cache food. They also disagreed with our interpretation of the scientific information regarding the likely effects of climate change on wolverines in the future. Our assessment of climate change impacts on wolverines used wolverines' snow dependence and suitable wolverine habitat and climate change models to predict future impacts of climate change on wolverine habitat suitability. Some of the commenters disagreed with this assessment and suggested that if the model of wolverine habitat that we used was not scientifically supported, then any analysis of climate change impacts to wolverines based on that habitat model may be flawed. Other peer reviewers were supportive of our interpretations of this information and provided analyses to support their views.
We are reopening the comment period to seek additional public comment on the proposed rule and on the issues outlined below. To ensure the public has an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the new information submitted to us on the proposed rule, we are reopening the comment period until the date specified above in
The information provided by the peer-reviewers can be found at our peer-review Web site at
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period and will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. If you previously submitted comments or information on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible.
We request comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Whether wolverines are dependent on cold and snowy conditions and habitat that closely approximates the area covered by snow until late spring (May 15).
a. Whether wolverines are dependent on such habitats defined by persistent spring snow for feeding, breeding, and sheltering.
b. Whether the projected impacts of climate change will result in loss of habitat for wolverines.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
a. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
b. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
c. Disease or predation;
d. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
e. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
(3) Information regarding the threats we identified in the proposed rule, or threats to the species that we may have overlooked in the proposed rule. Threats we identified were:
a. Habitat loss due to climate change;
b. Regulated trapping of wolverines and trapping of wolverines incidental to trapping for other species; and
c. Inbreeding and related genetic and demographic effects of small and isolated populations.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed above in
If you submit information via
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments.
We, NMFS, have completed comprehensive status reviews under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of five species of foreign sturgeons in response to a petition. We have determined, based on the best scientific and commercial data available and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species, that
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by December 30, 2013. Public hearing requests must be made by December 16, 2013.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2012–0142, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
You can obtain the petition, the proposed rule, and the list of references electronically on our NMFS Web site at
Dr. Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427–8403.
On March 12, 2012, we received a petition from the WildEarth Guardians and Friends of Animals to list 15 species of sturgeon (
We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
In making listing determinations for these five species, we first determine whether each petitioned species meets the ESA definition of a “species.” Next, using the best available information gathered during the status reviews, we complete an extinction risk assessment. We then assess the threats affecting the status of each species using the five listing factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Once we have determined the threats, we assess efforts being made to protect the species to determine if these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the existing threats. We evaluate conservation efforts using the criteria outlined in the joint NMFS/FWS Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts (PECE; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) to determine their certainty of implementation and effectiveness for future or not yet fully implemented conservation efforts. Finally, we re-assess the extinction risk of each species in light of the existing conservation efforts.
In order to complete the status reviews, we compiled information on the species biology, ecology, life history, threats, and conservation status from information contained in the petition, our files, a comprehensive literature search, and consultation with known experts. This information is available in a status review report available on our Web site (see
Sturgeons are bony fishes most closely related to paddlefishes and bichirs. They all have cartilaginous skeletons, heterocercal caudal fins (upper lobe is larger than the lower lobe), one spiracle respiratory opening (like sharks), and unique ganoid scales. In sturgeons, these ganoid scales remain only as the five rows of bony “scutes” on the sides of the body. They all have a bottom-oriented mouth with four barbels (sensory “whiskers”), a flat snout and strong rounded body. Sturgeons have an electrosensory system similar to that in sharks, which they use for feeding. All of these species seasonally migrate into rivers to spawn. They are mostly bottom-oriented feeders that are normally generalist predators on benthic prey, including various invertebrates and fishes, except
Historically,
The species has been reintroduced in Italy through a stocking program in rivers in the north central Lombardy region since 1991, and in the rivers of the northeast Veneto region since 1999 (Arlati and Poliakova, 2009). From June 1988 through April 2007, 438,633 fish were restocked. At present, the remaining captive parents from the wild stock constitute the only living Adriatic sturgeons of unequivocal wild origin left (Congiu
A genetic comparison between Italian and Albanian samples collected in the mid-20th century showed a high level of diversification and suggested that different populations should be considered as distinct conservation units (Ludwig
Juvenile
The only known potential spawning population remaining is in the Gironde system of southwestern France, but the last wild reproduction events occurred there in 1988 and 1994 (Williot
The only other place where adult sturgeon may occur is in the Rioni River system in Georgia (Kolman, 2011). This system has never had a population size estimate survey conducted (Kolman, 2011). Overfishing, pollution, and habitat destruction (dam construction on the spawning site) are all cited as causes of their decline in the system (Kolman, 2011). The last documented reproduction there was in 1991 (Rosenthal
Debus (1999) found some differences in the bony plates of
Historically,
The population size of
In the Pearl River, the two spawning areas stopped being used in the late 1970s as a result of the stock decline (Zhang, 1987). A study sampling fish larvae from 2006 through 2008 failed to collect any Chinese sturgeon larvae among the 614,000 fish larvae collected (Tan
Gao
Besides uncertainty about the taxonomic status of the Pearl and Chinese River populations (Billard and Lecointre, 2001), there is no information on population biology or geographical patterns in morphology, ecology, or biology with which to draw conclusions or make inferences about DPS structure in this species.
Historically,
The population size of
Spawning is earlier in the rivers of Hokkaido than the Tumnin River, but it is unknown if this is simply an effect of environmental conditions or reflects underlying population structure. There is no other information on population biology or geographical patterns in morphology, ecology, or biology with which to draw conclusions or make inferences about population or DPS structure in this species.
There are four recognized populations of
The estuary population is divided into freshwater and saltwater morphs; 75–80 percent are the freshwater morph and the remainder are the saltwater morph (Krykhtin and Svirskii, 1997c). The latter winters in the freshwater zone, and migrates to the brackish water of the delta in the northern part of the Tatar Strait and the south-western part of the Sakhalin Gulf for feeding in June and July. They return to the freshwater zone in autumn when the salinity increases. For spawning, most of the saltwater morph migrates in winter to grounds up to 500 km from the river mouth, while other morphs enter the mid-Amur River. However, the freshwater non-migratory stock has not been assigned a separate population status as both stocks spawn on the same spawning grounds in the lower Amur River (Schmigirlov
Current populations consist predominantly of young fish, with mature fish accounting for only 2–3 percent of the population (Krykhtin and Svirskii, 1997b). As a result of the species' late maturation and generally low reproductive rate, the population decline is expected to continue, especially in the middle Amur. Since 2000, Kaluga older than 10 years have not been observed in the Amur River channel during nonspawning periods, suggesting that adults from the resident stocks in the Amur River are absent (Schmigirlov
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information described above, we have determined that
We next consider the risk of extinction for
The extinction risk analysis team found all five species to be at high risk of extinction in the present, with median votes for each team member at or above 80 percent probability of being currently in danger of extinction for each species. After reviewing the best available scientific data and the extinction risk evaluation on the five species of sturgeon, we concur with the findings of the extinction risk analysis team and conclude that the risk of extinction for all five species of sturgeon is currently high.
Next we consider whether any one or a combination of the five threat factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are contributing to the extinction risk of these five sturgeons. The extinction risk analysis team voted in a similar fashion for each of the five threat factors and their interaction as they did for overall extinction risk discussed above. We concur with their assessment. We discuss each of the five factors and their interaction in turn below, with species- specific information following a general discussion. More species-specific details are available in Meadows and Coll (2013).
We identified habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range as a potential threat to all five species of sturgeons and determine that this factor is currently contributing significantly to the risk of extinction most significantly for
The hydropower dam built in the 1950s on the Po River, Italy (Isola Serafini's Dam), and water pollution particularly affect the last stronghold of
Dams are a particularly significant factor in the decline and range contraction of
The construction of the Gezhouba Dam limits the distribution of
Pollution from agriculture, oil production, and mining is degrading habitat quality for
In contrast to most large rivers, the Amur River, the core of the range of
We identified overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes as a potential threat to all five species of sturgeons and determine that this factor is currently contributing significantly to the risk of extinction for
CITES has regulated international trade in all species of sturgeon since 1998 (CITES 2013). CITES Appendix II
Bycatch (Gessner, personal communication) and recreational fishing (Williot, personal communication) are the main current problems in this category for
Overutilization is thought to be the main threat that caused the decline of
We determine disease and predation are potential threats to each of the five species of sturgeon, but the level of threat varies by species. This threat is ranked most highly for
Hybrid
We identified inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as a potential threat to each of the five species of sturgeon. We determined that this factor alone, or in combination with other factors, is currently contributing moderately to significantly to the risk of extinction for each species, with greater variability in the voting on this threat than for any of the other five threats (Meadows and Coll, 2013). Despite listing under CITES, and species-
Given the low to very low numbers of reproductively mature adults and the relatively modest stocking efforts on a range-wide scale, the above regulations are not likely to be sufficient to sustainably manage these species without conservation protections. Moreover, it is currently unclear whether the range countries for the petitioned sturgeon species have the resources and personnel to enforce existing regulatory measures as reports of poaching and illegal trade are widespread. Compliance is another problem and requires more consolidated efforts. We seek more detailed information on efforts in these areas in our public comment process (see below).
Bycatch is a major current threat to
For
In 1988,
Since 1983,
In the Russian Federation, a prohibition on the commercial catch of
We determine that other natural or manmade factors are potential threats to each of the five species of sturgeon, but the level of threat is generally no more than moderate, except for a high threat level for
The long lifespan and late maturation of
Recent research has shown that synergistic interactions among threats often lead to higher extinction risk than predicted based on the individual threats (Brook
After considering the extinction risks for each of the five species of sturgeon, we have determined that
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a listing determination for a species, to take into consideration those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect the species. In judging the efficacy of not yet implemented efforts, or those existing protective efforts that are not yet fully effective, we rely on the Services' joint “Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions” (“PECE”; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). The PECE policy is designed to ensure consistent and adequate evaluation of whether any conservation efforts that have been recently adopted or implemented, but not yet proven to be successful, will result in recovering the species to the point at which listing is not warranted or contribute to forming the basis for listing a species as threatened rather than endangered. The PECE policy is expected to facilitate the development
The PECE policy establishes two basic criteria to use in evaluating efforts identified in conservations plans, conservation agreements, management plans or similar documents: (1) The certainty that the conservation efforts will be implemented; and (2) the certainty that the efforts will be effective. We evaluated conservation efforts we are aware of to protect and recover sturgeon that are either underway but not yet fully implemented, or are only planned. We seek additional information on other conservation efforts in our public comment process (see below).
We are aware of the stocking program in Italy for
A large number of conservation efforts are underway for
Gessner (2000) documents conservation efforts in place in the late 1990s in Germany. In 1994, efforts to reestablish
European countries have completed a draft conservation action plan for the species (Rosenthal
We are aware of the stocking program for
An artificial propagation programs exists for
We are aware of the stocking programs for
We are aware of no other conservation efforts that have been recently adopted or implemented, but not yet proven to be successful, that could modify the risk of extinction for any of these species and that would require consideration under the PECE policy. Therefore, we conclude that the identified conservation efforts do not alter the extinction risk assessments for any of the five petitioned sturgeon species.
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that we make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species. We have reviewed the best available scientific and
Based on the information presented, we find that all five species of sturgeon are in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges. We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and conclude the Adriatic, European, Chinese, Sakhalin and Kaluga sturgeon all face ongoing threats from habitat alteration, overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes, and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms throughout their ranges.
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), concurrent designation of critical habitat if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); and prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' plight through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals. Therefore, the main effects of this proposed listing are prohibitions on take, including export and import.
Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations also require Federal agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. It is possible that the listing of the five species of sturgeon under the ESA may create a minor increase in the number of section 7 consultations, though consultations are likely to be rare given that these species mostly occur in foreign territorial waters.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) 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. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12 (h)).
The best available scientific and commercial data as discussed above identify the geographical areas occupied by
The best available scientific and commercial information on these species does not indicate that U.S. waters provide any specific essential biological function for any of them. Based on the best available information, we have not identified unoccupied area(s) that are currently essential to the conservation of any of the sturgeons proposed for listing. Therefore, based on the available information, we do not intend to designate critical habitat for
On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. Because we are proposing to list all five sturgeons as endangered, all of the prohibitions of Section 9(a)(10) of the ESA will apply to all five species. These include prohibitions against the import, export, use in foreign commerce, or “take” of the species. Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” These prohibitions apply to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including in the United States, its territorial sea, or on the high seas. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effects of this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' range. Activities that we believe could result in a violation of section 9 prohibitions of these five sturgeons include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Take within the United States or its territorial sea, or upon the high seas;
(2) Possessing, delivering, transporting, or shipping any sturgeon part;
(3) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce any sturgeon or sturgeon part, in the course of a commercial activity;
(4) Selling or offering for sale in interstate commerce any part, except antique articles at least 100 years old;
(5) Importing or exporting sturgeon or any sturgeon part to or from any country;
(6) Releasing captive sturgeon into the wild. Although sturgeon held non-commercially in captivity at the time of listing are exempt from certain prohibitions, the individual animals are considered listed and afforded most of the protections of the ESA, including most importantly, the prohibition against injuring or killing. Release of a captive animal has the potential to injure or kill the animal. Of an even greater conservation concern, the release of a captive animal has the potential to affect wild populations of native sturgeon through introduction of diseases or inappropriate genetic mixing;
(7) Harming captive sturgeon by, among other things, injuring or killing a captive sturgeon, through experimental or potentially injurious veterinary care or conducting research or breeding activities on captive sturgeon, outside the bounds of normal animal husbandry practices. Captive breeding of sturgeon is considered experimental and potentially injurious. Furthermore, the production of sturgeon progeny has conservation implications (both positive and negative) for wild populations. Experimental or potentially injurious veterinary procedures and research or breeding activities of sturgeon may, depending on the circumstances, be authorized under an ESA 10(a)(1)(A) permit for scientific research or the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species.
We will identify, to the extent known at the time of the final rule, specific activities that will not be considered likely to result in a violation of section 9 of the ESA. Although not binding, we are considering the following actions, depending on the circumstances, as not being prohibited by ESA Section 9:
(1) Take of a sturgeon authorized by an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit authorized by, and carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by NMFS for purposes of scientific research or the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species;
(2) Continued possession of sturgeon parts that were in possession at the time of listing. Such parts may be non-commercially exported or imported; however the importer or exporter must be able to provide evidence to show that the parts meet the criteria of ESA section 9(b)(1) (i.e., held in a controlled environment at the time of listing, in a non-commercial activity);
(3) Continued possession of live sturgeon that were in captivity or in a controlled environment (e.g., in aquaria) at the time of this listing, so long as the prohibitions under ESA section 9(a)(1) are not violated. Facilities must provide evidence that the sturgeon were in captivity or in a controlled environment prior to listing. We suggest such facilities submit information to us on the sturgeon in their possession (e.g., size, age, description of animals, and the source and date of acquisition) to establish their claim of possession (see
(4) Provision of care for live sturgeon that were in captivity at the time of listing. These individuals are still protected under the ESA and may not be killed or injured, or otherwise harmed, and, therefore, must receive proper care. Normal care of captive animals necessarily entails handling or other manipulation of the animals, and we do not consider such activities to constitute take or harassment of the animals so long as adequate care, including veterinary care, such as confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing sturgeon when such practices, procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in injury, is provided; and
(5) Any interstate and foreign commerce trade of sturgeon already in captivity. Section 11(f) of the ESA gives NMFS authority to promulgate regulations that may be appropriate to enforce the ESA. NMFS may promulgate future regulations to regulate trade or holding of these sturgeon, if necessary. NMFS will provide the public with the opportunity to comment on future proposed regulations.
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing a minimum peer review standard. Similarly, a joint NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) requires us to solicit independent expert review from qualified specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. We solicited peer review comments on the status review report from 12 outside scientists and two NMFS scientists familiar with sturgeons. We received comments from four of these scientists and their comments are incorporated into the status review report and this document. Prior to a final listing, we will solicit the expert opinions of several qualified specialists selected from the academic and scientific community, Federal and State agencies, and the private sector on these listing recommendations to ensure the best biological and commercial information is being used in the decision-making process, as well as to ensure that reviews by recognized experts are incorporated into the review process of rulemakings developed in accordance with the requirements of the ESA.
We will consider peer review comments in making our final determination, and include a summary of the comments and recommendations, if a final rule is published.
A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is available upon request (see
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed rule will be given to the relevant governmental agencies in the countries in which the
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate as possible and informed by the best available scientific and commercial information. Therefore, we request comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, environmental groups or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments containing:
(1) Information concerning the location(s) of any sightings or captures of the species;
(2) Information concerning the threats to the species;
(3) Taxonomic information on the species;
(4) Biological information (life history, genetics, population connectivity, etc.)
(5) Efforts being made to protect the species throughout their current ranges;
(6) Information on the commercial trade of these species; and
(7) Historical and current distribution and abundance and trends.
We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
Public hearing requests must be made by December 16, 2013.
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 U.S.C 1361
(a)
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board will hold a meeting in Golden Pond, Kentucky. Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App 2). The meeting is open to the public and the agenda will focus on existing Environmental Education programs and improving engagement with regional school groups.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 14, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m., Central Standard Time.
The meeting will be held at the Administration Office of Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky.
Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying.
Linda L. Taylor, Advisory Board Liaison, by phone at 270–924–2002.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
Written comments are invited and must be sent to Tina Tilley, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211. Comments must be received by November 7, 2013 for copies to be provided to the members for this meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested for a future meeting.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Revision: The survey will be conducted by the Sea Grant Program rather than the Office of Education and the Gulf of Mexico Regional Collaboration Team, as it was originally.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482–0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on November 14, 2013, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.
1. Opening Remarks and Introductions.
2. Remarks from BIS senior management and export control reform update.
3. Presentation from DuPont on the challenges that license conditions can bring and a discussion on recent efforts to make conditions more industry friendly.
4. Report of Composite Working Group.
5. Report of Biological and Pump/Valves Working Group.
6. Report on regime-based activities.
7. SHUTDOWN Feedback.
8. Public Comments and New Business.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Yasmin Nair at (202) 482–3813 or Angelica Mendoza at (202) 482–3019, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On September 18, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of grain-oriented electrical steel (GOES) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper form, on behalf of AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel), Allegheny Ludlum, LLC (Allegheny Ludlum), as well as the United Steelworkers, which represents employees of Allegheny Ludlum that are engaged in the production of GOES in the United States (collectively, the petitioners).
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of the PRC (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) with respect to imports of GOES from the PRC, and that imports of GOES from the PRC are materially injuring, and threaten material injury to, the domestic industry producing GOES in the United States. The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, and that the petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the investigation the petitioners are requesting.
The period of investigation is January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012.
The product covered by this investigation is GOES from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope in order to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. As discussed in the Preamble to the regulations,
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the GOC for consultations with respect to the Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The United States International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that GOES constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2012.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD
Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. The petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; decline in production, capacity utilization, and shipments; reduced employment variables; and decline in financial performance.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations. In the Petition, the petitioners allege that producers/exporters of GOES in the PRC benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the government. The Department has examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of GOES from the PRC receive countervailable subsidies from the government.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on certain alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program,
A public version of the initiation checklist is available on IA ACCESS and at
For this investigation, the Department will release U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of subject merchandise during the period of investigation under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers: 7225.11.0000, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9030, and 7226.11.9060. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO shortly after the announcement of this case initiation. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found at
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. EST on the seventh calendar day after publication of this notice. Comments must be filed in accordance with the filing requirements stated above. If respondent selection is necessary, we intend to base our decision regarding respondent selection upon comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information within 20 days of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the petitions have been provided to the GOC via IA ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to each known exporter (as named in the petition), as provided in 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of GOES from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On September 20, 2013, the Department published
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
The scope of this investigation covers grain-oriented silicon electrical steel (GOES). GOES is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths. The GOES that is subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under subheadings 7225.11.0000, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9030, and 7226.11.9060 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance (formerly Import Administration), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
October 31, 2013.
Emily Halle at (202) 482–0176 (India); Victoria Cho at (202) 482–5075 (Korea); Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482–0665 (the Philippines); Jason Rhoads at (202) 482–0123 (Saudi Arabia); Thomas Schauer at (202) 482–0410 (Taiwan); Yasmin Nair at (202) 482–3813 (Thailand); Catherine Cartsos at (202) 482–1757 (Turkey); David Lindgren at (202) 482–3870 (Ukraine); or Fred Baker at (202) 482–2924 (Vietnam), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On July 29, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of antidumping duty investigations of certain oil country tubular goods from India, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, the Republic of Turkey, Ukraine, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Because of the extraordinary complexity of these cases and the number of firms whose activities we must investigate, we determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary determinations by the current deadline. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b), the Department is postponing the deadline for these preliminary determinations to no later than 190 days after the date on which it initiated these investigations. Therefore, the new deadline for issuing these preliminary determinations is February 13, 2014.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Jun Jack Zhao (the People's Republic of China (the PRC)), or Gene Calvert (the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia)) at (202) 482–1396, or (202) 482–3586, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On September 16, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of monosodium glutamate (MSG) from Indonesia and the PRC filed in proper form on behalf of Ajinomoto North America Inc. (Petitioner).
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that the Governments of Indonesia (the GOI) and the PRC (the GOC) are providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC, and that such imports are materially injuring, and threaten to further cause material injury to, the domestic industry producing MSG in the United States pursuant to section 701 of the Act. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the investigations that Petitioner is requesting.
The periods of these investigations (POI) is January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012.
The product covered by these investigations is MSG from Indonesia and the PRC.
During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations,
The period for scope comments is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives from the GOC and the GOI for consultations with respect to the Petitions.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that MSG constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2012.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate.
Because Indonesia and China are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Indonesia and the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. Petitioner also demonstrates that the volume of subject imports from Indonesia is 15 percent, which exceeds the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(B) of the Act, which states that in countervailing duty proceedings, imports of subject merchandise from developing countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent.
Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; and decline in financial performance.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations. In the Petitions, Petitioner alleges that producers of MSG in Indonesia and the PRC benefitted from countervailable subsidies bestowed by their respective governments. The Department has examined the Petitions, and finds that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC receive countervailable subsidies from their respective governments.
Based on our examination of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 10 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision on whether to initiate an investigation on each program,
Based on our examination of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 49 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision on whether to initiate an investigation on each program,
For these investigations, the Department, if necessary, intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POI (
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the GOI and GOC via IA ACCESS. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petitions, the Department considers the service of the public versions of the Petitions to the foreign producers/exporters to be satisfied by the provision of the public versions of the Petitions to the GOI and GOC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
On September 20, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
The scope of these investigations covers monosodium glutamate (“MSG”), whether or not blended or in solution with other products. Specifically, MSG that has been blended or is in solution with other product(s) is included in this scope when the resulting mix contains 15% or more of MSG by dry weight. Products with which MSG may be blended include, but are not limited to, salts, sugars, starches, maltodextrins, and various seasonings. Further, MSG is included in these investigations regardless of physical form (including, but not limited to, substrates, solutions, dry powders of any particle size, or unfinished forms such as MSG slurry), end-use application, or packaging.
MSG has a molecular formula of C
Merchandise covered by the scope of these investigations is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) of the United States at subheading 2922.42.10.00. Merchandise subject to the investigations may also enter under HTS subheadings 2922.42.50.00, 2103.90.72.00, 2103.90.74.00, 2103.90.78.00, 2103.90.80.00, and 2103.90.90.91. The tariff classifications, CAS registry number, and UNII number are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 9, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. This review covers two producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise, Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai), and Pacific Pipe Company Limited (Pacific Pipe). The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2011, through February 29, 2012. The Department received comments from interested parties. For the final results we continue to find that Saha Thai has not sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV), and that Pacific Pipe had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.
Jun Jack Zhao or Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1396 or (202) 482–3148, respectively.
On April 9, 2013, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand.
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand.
For the final results of this review, we continue to find that Pacific Pipe had no shipments during the POR.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues that parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record as well as comments received from parties regarding the
As a result of our review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period March 1, 2011, through February 29, 2012.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2) and the
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
Consistent with the
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Saha Thai will be 0.00 percent, the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for Pacific Pipe and previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or the LTFV investigation, then
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 10, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
Cindy Robinson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3797.
On June 10, 2013, the Department published the
In the
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf filler paper) including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8
Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:
• Unlined copy machine paper;
• Writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;
• Three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper;
• Index cards;
• Printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
• Newspapers;
• Pictures and photographs;
• Desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”);
• Telephone logs;
• Address books;
• Columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
• Lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: Pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
• Lined continuous computer paper;
• Boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to products commonly known as “fine business paper,” “parchment paper,” and “letterhead”), whether or not containing a lined header or decorative lines;
• Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled (“Gregg ruling” consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the left of the book.), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches.
Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following trademarked products:
• Fly
• Zwipes
• FiveStar®Advance
• FiveStar Flex
Merchandise subject to this order is typically imported under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4811.90.9035, 4811.90.9080, 4820.30.0040, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000.
Since the issuance of the order, the Department has clarified the scope of the order in response to numerous scope inquiries. In addition, on September 23, 2011, the Department revoked, in part, the PRC AD order with respect to FiveStar® Advance
The Department preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Hwa Fuh/Li Teng because the Department was unable to deliver the initial questionnaire to the company using the address provided by Petitioners. Since we did not receive any comments on our
Lian Li timely submitted a certification of non-shipment of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In the
In the
The Department has made no changes to the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise and deposits of estimated duties, where applicable, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of certain lined paper products from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (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 destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Josh Startup, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; (202) 482–5260.
On March 29, 2013, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the
Because the Department revoked the
Pursuant to the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a 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, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which 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).
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Jun Jack Zhao (the People's Republic of China (PRC)) or Gene Calvert (the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia)) at (202) 482–1396 or (202) 482–3586, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On September 16, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of monosodium glutamate (MSG) from the PRC and Indonesia filed in proper form on behalf of Ajinomoto North America Inc. (Petitioner).
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner in support of its allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioner is requesting.
Because the petitions were filed on September 16, 2013, the period of investigation (POI) for the PRC investigation is January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013. The POI for the Indonesia investigation is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013.
The product covered by these investigations is MSG from Indonesia and the PRC.
During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations,
The period for scope comments is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of MSG to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report accurately the relevant factors of production and costs, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe MSG, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments on product characteristics by November 12, 2013. Rebuttal comments must be received by November 18, 2013. All comments and submissions to the Department must be
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date noted above. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that MSG constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2012.
Our review of the data provided in the petitions and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate.
Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department has based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist and the PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
For Indonesia, Petitioner calculated an EP based on monthly AUVs for the POI for U.S. imports of MSG for consumption from Indonesia under HTSUS subheading 2922.42.1000 (the subheading relevant to MSG) using the ITC's Dataweb. Petitioner also calculated a POI weighted-average AUV.
Petitioner calculated an export price (EP) based on monthly average unit values (AUVs) for the POI for U.S. imports of MSG for consumption from the PRC under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2922.42.1000 (the subheading relevant to MSG) using the ITC's Dataweb. Petitioner also calculated a POI weighted-average AUV. In addition, using detailed information regarding the month, district of unlading, and district of entry, Petitioner was able to estimate certain dumping margins for individual transactions between a Chinese exporter of MSG and a U.S. importer of MSG by matching ship manifest data to the official import statistics. Petitioner used official import statistics to calculate the U.S. price for two such individual transactions.
Petitioner based NV on constructed value (CV), as neither a home market nor a third-country price was reasonably available. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); SG&A expenses; financial expenses; packing expenses; and profit. Petitioner owns and operates two MSG production facilities in Indonesia, PT Ajinomoto Indonesia (AJIND) and PT Ajinex International (AJINEX) which, according to Petitioner, are similar to Indonesian MSG producer CJ Indonesia's production facilities in terms of production capacity, production equipment, and production inputs. Petitioner calculated COM and packing expenses based on the actual cost data of the Petitioner's MSG producers in Indonesia.
To determine SG&A and profit rates, Petitioner relied on the average rates calculated based on the financial statements for AJIND for the year ended March 31, 2013 and the financial statements for AJINEX for the year ended March 31, 2012, because the March 31, 2013 financial statements for AJINEX were not available to Petitioner at the time of the filing of the petition.
To calculate the financial expense rate, Petitioner relied on the financial statements of CJ Indonesia's parent company, CJ Cheil Jedang Corporation, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011.
Petitioner claims that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) country, and that this designation remains in effect as of the date of this petition.
Petitioner contends that Indonesia is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because: (1) It is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, (2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise relative to the MSG that is the subject of the petition, and (3) the data available from Indonesia for valuing factors of production are available and reliable.
Petitioner calculated NV using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. In calculating NV, Petitioner based the quantity of each of the inputs used to manufacture the subject merchandise on its own consumption experience, which, Petitioner contends is, to the best of its knowledge, similar to the consumption of PRC producers.
Petitioner valued the factors of production using reasonably available, public surrogate country data, specifically, Indonesian import data from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period December 2012—May 2013, the most recent six-month period for which data were available.
Petitioner valued direct material costs using Indonesia import data from the GTA.
Petitioner calculated the labor expense rate using 2010 data for Indonesia from Chapter 5B of the International Labor Organization's (ILO's) wage data because wage data from Chapter 6 was not available for Indonesia.
Petitioner based the factor values for electricity and steam on the industry rates set forth in the 2012 Handbook of Energy and Economic Statistics of Indonesia, published by the Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.
Petitioner calculated financial ratios (
For packing inputs, Petitioner claims that the majority of MSG imported to the United States from the PRC is packaged in 50-pound bags. Petitioner obtained Indonesian import data from the GTA to derive the surrogate values for these bags.
Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, Petitioner calculated the estimated dumping margins, based on POI weighted-average AUVs, to be 72.59 percent with respect to imports of MSG from the PRC, and 55.25 percent with respect to imports of MSG from Indonesia. For the individual transactions between a PRC exporter and a U.S. importer, Petitioner calculated margins between 103.76 and 204.69 percent.
Based on our examination of the petitions on MSG from Indonesia and the PRC, the Department finds that the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC are being, or likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will issue our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the publication date of this initiation notice.
The Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POI (
With respect to the PRC, in accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection for NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value questionnaires to each potential respondent, and will base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site (
In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application.
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the petitions have been provided to the Governments of Indonesia and the PRC via IA ACCESS. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the petitions, the Department considers the service of the public versions of the petitions to the foreign producers/exporters to be satisfied by the provision of the public versions of the petitions to the Governments of Indonesia and the PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of MSG from Indonesia and the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
On September 20, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
The scope of these investigations covers monosodium glutamate (“MSG”), whether or not blended or in solution with other products. Specifically, MSG that has been blended or is in solution with other product(s) is included in this scope when the resulting mix contains 15% or more of MSG by dry weight. Products with which MSG may be blended include, but are not limited to, salts, sugars, starches, maltodextrins, and various seasonings. Further, MSG is included in these investigations regardless of physical form (including, but not limited to, substrates, solutions, dry powders of any particle size, or unfinished forms such as MSG slurry), end-use application, or packaging.
MSG has a molecular formula of C
Merchandise covered by the scope of these investigations is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) of the United States at subheading 2922.42.10.00. Merchandise subject to the investigations may also enter under HTS subheadings 2922.42.50.00, 2103.90.72.00, 2103.90.74.00, 2103.90.78.00, 2103.90.80.00, and 2103.90.90.91. The tariff classifications, CAS registry number, and UNII number are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Patrick Edwards at (202) 482–8029 (the People's Republic of China (PRC)); Elizabeth Eastwood at (202) 482–3874 (the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, and the Russian Federation (Russia)); or Steve Bezirganian at (202) 482–1131 (Japan and the Republic of Korea (Korea)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On September 18, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of grain-oriented electrical steel (GOES) from the PRC, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia (the Petitions) filed in proper form on behalf of AK Steel Corporation, Allegheny Ludlum, LLC, and the United Steelworkers (collectively, the petitioners).
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of GOES from the PRC, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), because the Petitions were filed on September 18, 2013, the period of investigation (POI) for the PRC investigation is January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013. The POI for the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia investigations is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013.
The product covered by these investigations is GOES from the PRC, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland and Russia. For a full description of the scope of the investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice.
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. As discussed in the preamble to the regulations,
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of GOES to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production (COPs) accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe GOES, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially-meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments on product characteristics by November 13, 2013. Rebuttal comments must be received by November 20, 2013. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as referenced above.
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the term “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the term “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that GOES, as defined in the scope of the investigations, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2012.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have met the statutory criteria for industry support pursuant to section 732(c)(4) of the Act.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate.
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; decline in production, capacity utilization, and shipments; reduced employment variables; and decline in financial performance.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of GOES from the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, the PRC, and Russia. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.
For the Czech Republic, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia, the petitioners based U.S. price on offers for sales of GOES from producers of subject merchandise produced in, and exported from, the subject country. The petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms. For Japan and Korea, the petitioners also made deductions from U.S. price for trader markups when traders made the offers for sale; these deductions were estimated based on the financial statements of independent steel traders.
For Germany, Japan, and the PRC, the petitioners calculated constructed export price (CEP) based on offers for sales of GOES from producers of subject merchandise produced in, and exported from, the subject country. The petitioners classified these offers as CEP transactions based on research showing the majority of imports from these producers were facilitated by their U.S. affiliates. The petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses, consistent with the delivery terms. The petitioners also deducted U.S. indirect selling expenses estimated using the financial statements of an independent steel trader (for Germany, Japan, and the PRC) and imputed credit expenses (for Germany).
For the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia, the petitioners based NV on price information from a producer of GOES in each of these countries that was sold in the subject country obtained through market research for the foreign like product. The petitioners made adjustments to NV for imputed credit expenses consistent with the sales terms. The petitioners also made a difference-in-merchandise adjustment to NV, where applicable, to account for differences between the home market and U.S. products (for Germany, Japan, Korea, and Russia). The petitioners made no other adjustments to NV.
With respect to the PRC, the petitioners state that the Department has long treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country.
The petitioners claim that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer of the merchandise under consideration, and the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.
Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. We also believe that, for initiation purposes, it is appropriate to use the Indian financial statements as the surrogate source for financial ratios. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 40 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
The petitioners based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on the consumption rates of the U.S. producers of GOES products. The petitioners assert that the experience of the U.S. producers is appropriate for comparison to producers in the PRC because the U.S. producers are comparable producers of the subject merchandise.
The petitioners valued the FOPs for pig-iron (
The petitioners excluded all import values from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries. In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the average import value excludes imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country.
The petitioners valued labor using information published in a 2007 industrial survey by the Thailand National Statistics Office.
The petitioners valued electricity using a 2012 electricity rate in Thai baht per kilowatt hour, as reported by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand.
The petitioners valued natural gas using publicly available Thai import data obtained from GTA in U.S. dollars for the POI.
The petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (
For the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia, the petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of GOES in the respective home markets were made at prices below the fully-absorbed COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct country-wide sales-below-cost investigations. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), submitted to the Congress in connection with the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or producers.
Further, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains the requirement that the Department have “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect” that below-cost sales have occurred before initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign market in question are at below-cost prices.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); SG&A expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. The petitioners calculated COM based on the petitioners' experience adjusted for known differences between their industry in the United States and the industries of the respective country (
To determine factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates, the petitioners relied on financial statements of producers of comparable merchandise operating in the respective foreign country.
Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign like product in the home market to the calculated COP of the most comparable product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like products were made at prices that are below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating country-wide cost investigations on sales of GOES from the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia.
For the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). The petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial expense, and packing figures used to compute the COPs. The petitioners relied on the same financial statements used as the basis for the factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates to calculate the profit rates.
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of GOES from the PRC, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of export price or CEP to NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for GOES from: (1) The Czech Republic range from 68.46 percent to 235.50 percent;
Based upon the examination of the Petitions on GOES from the PRC, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of GOES from the PRC, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, and Russia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will
Although the Department normally relies on import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in AD investigations, if appropriate, these Petitions name only one company as a producer/exporter of GOES in the Czech Republic: ArcelorMittal Frydek-Mistek A.S.; one company as a producer/exporter of GOES in Germany: ThyssenKrupp Electrical Steel GmbH; one company as a producer/exporter of GOES in Korea: POSCO; one company as a producer/exporter of GOES in Poland: Stalprodukt S.A.; one company as a producer/exporter of GOES in Russia: Novolipetsk Steel; and two companies as producers/exporters of GOES in Japan: JFE Steel Corporation and Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation.
With respect to the PRC, in accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection for NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value questionnaires to each potential respondent and base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site (
In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate rate status application.
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the Governments of the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, the PRC, and Russia via IA ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each known exporter (as named in the Petitions), as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Pursuant to a request by the Government of Korea, on October 22, 2013, Department officials met with Korean Government officials to discuss the status of the Department's consideration of the petition and industry support, as provided under section 732(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than November 20, 2013, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of GOES from the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Korea, Poland, the PRC, and Russia are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On September 20, 2013, the Department published
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
The scope of these investigations covers grain-oriented silicon electrical steel (GOES). GOES is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths. The GOES that is subject to these investigations is currently classifiable under subheadings 7225.11.0000, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9030, and 7226.11.9060 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 11, 2013, the United States Court of International Trade (“Court” or “CIT”) issued its final judgment in
Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2312.
On May 6, 2013, the Department filed the
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the
Global Markets, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
In 2005, the Governments of the United States and India established the U.S.-India CEO Forum. On February 10, 2012, we published in the
Applications should be received no later than 30 days after publication of this Notice.
Please send requests for consideration to Valerie Dees, Awinash Bawle, and Jed Diemond at the Office of South Asia, U.S. Department of Commerce, either by email at
Valerie Dees, Director, Office of South Asia, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482–0477.
The U.S.-India CEO Forum, consisting of both private and public sector members, brings together leaders of the respective business communities of the United States and India to discuss issues of mutual interest, particularly ways to strengthen the economic and commercial ties between the two countries, and to communicate their joint recommendations to the U.S. and Indian governments. The Forum has U.S. and Indian co-chairs; the U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs, together with the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India, co-chair the Forum. The Forum includes a Committee comprising private sector members. The Committee will be composed of two Sections, each consisting of 10–12 members from the private sector representing the views and interests of the private sector business community in the United States and India, respectively. Each government will appoint the members to its respective Section. The Committee will provide recommendations to the two governments and their senior officials that reflect private sector views, needs, and concerns about the creation of an environment in which their respective private sectors can partner, thrive, and enhance bilateral commercial ties to expand trade and economic links between the United States and India. The Committee will continue to build on the work done by the Committee to date, including the Forum's April 2008 and November 2010 reports.
On February 10, 2012, we published in the
Candidates are currently being sought for membership on the U.S. Section of the Forum. Each candidate must be the Chief Executive Officer or President (or have a comparable level of responsibility) of a U.S.-owned or controlled company that is incorporated in and has its main headquarters located
Evaluation of applications for membership in the U.S. Section by eligible individuals will be based on the following criteria:
• Representation of either the health care sector or insurance industry sector.
• A demonstrated commitment by the individual's company to the Indian market either through exports or investment.
• A demonstrated strong interest in India and its economic development.
• The ability to offer a broad perspective and business experience to the discussions.
• The ability to address cross-cutting issues that affect the entire business community.
• The ability to initiate and be responsible for activities in which the Forum will be active.
The evaluation of applications for membership in the U.S. Section will be undertaken by a committee of staff from multiple U.S. Government agencies. Members will be selected on the basis of who best will carry out the objectives of the Forum as stated in the last paragraph of the
U.S. Section members will receive no compensation for their participation in Forum-related activities. Individual members will be responsible for all travel and related expenses associated with their participation in the Forum, including attendance at Committee and Section meetings. It is anticipated that the next Forum meeting will be held approximately in the first half of 2014. The U.S. and Indian Sections should be prepared to work together ahead of that time to prepare recommendations to the U.S. and Indian governments. Only appointed members may participate in official Forum meetings; substitutes and alternates will not be designated. Appointed members will serve for the remainder of the current two-year term, scheduled to expire on August 31, 2014, and will be eligible to apply for reappointment for a subsequent term. In the event of a vacancy after members of the U.S. Section are appointed, candidates not previously selected may be considered to fill the vacancy based on material submitted in response to this notice.
To be considered for membership in the U.S. Section, please submit the following information as instructed in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 30, 2013.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Peter Cooper at (301) 427–8503 or
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFMCA, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is to ensure that conservation and management measures promote, to the extent practicable, implementation of scientific research programs that include the tagging and releasing of Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS). The currently approved information collection allows the public to submit volunteered geographic and biological information relating to HMS releases in order to populate an interactive Web site mapping tool. This Web page attracts visitors who are interested in Atlantic HMS and contains information and links to promote HMS tagging programs that the general public can support or become involved with. All submissions are voluntary. Information is used to raise awareness for releasing Atlantic HMS and HMS tagging programs, and is not used as representative results.
Respondents may submit information via electronic form, email, fax, or mail.
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
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public informational scoping meetings on the Management of Bottomfish Fishery Resources within the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Mariana Islands.
The Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) will convene public informational scoping meetings in Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to solicit comments on the management of the bottomfish fishery within the EEZ of the Mariana Islands. The scoping meeting will, among other things, describe the existing federal management regime for bottomfish species, examine the current performance of the fishery and consider the need for potential regulatory changes.
Public informational scoping meetings will be held in CNMI on November 18, 2013 and in Guam November 19, 2013. See
Written comments on this issue may be sent to Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.
Comments may be sent to the Council via facsimile (fax) at (808) 522–8226.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, WPFMC, (808) 522–8220.
Dates, Times, and Locations for Public Informational Scoping Meetings
1. Saipan, CNMI—Monday, November 18, 2013, from 6 p.m.–9 p.m. at the Northern Marianas College (NMC) Classroom D–1, and via video conference in Rota, CNMI at the NMC Video Teleconference (VTC) Room A2, and in Tinian, CNMI at the NMC VTC Room C.
2. Tumon, Guam—Tuesday, November 19, 2013, from 6 p.m.–9 p.m. at the Guam Hilton Hotel.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522–8220 (voice) or (808) 522–8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Groundfish Plan Teams will meet in Seattle, WA.
The meetings will be held November 18–22, 2013. The meetings will begin at 9 a.m., November 18, and continue through Friday November 22, 2013.
The meetings will be held at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Building 4, Observer Training Room 1055 (GOA Plan Team) and Traynor Room 2076 (BS/AI Plan Team), Seattle, WA.
Jane DiCosimo or Diana Stram, NPFMC; telephone: (907) 271–2809.
The Plan Teams will compile and review the annual Groundfish Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports, including the Economic Report, the Ecosystems Consideration Chapter, the stock assessments for BSAI and GOA groundfishes, and recommend final groundfish harvest specifications for 2014/15.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen, (907) 271–2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information for the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments not later than December 2, 2013.
OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, or emailed to
For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504–7815, or by email to:
In the
Two comments were received in response to the August 15th notice. One commenter stated support for extension of the approval of the collection of information for the Database, citing the usefulness of the data collected to both the CPSC and to consumers. This commenter also suggested that the Database could be even more useful if CPSC would provide a link to any corrective action, fine, recall or safety alert involving a reported product. CPSC agrees that the links suggested by the commenter would add value to the Database. However, incorporating new features would require resources that are not currently available. CPSC will take the suggestion under advisement and consider such modifications if and when resources for modifications are available. Another commenter stated that CPSC does not help consumers. CPSC has no response to this comment because the comment is outside the scope of the inquiry regarding paperwork burdens associated with the requested collection of information.
By publication of this notice, the Commission announces that it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval of the collection of information for the Database without change.
Section 212 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) added section 6A to the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) which requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) to establish and maintain a publicly available, searchable database on the safety of consumer products, and other products or substances regulated by the Commission (Database). Among other things, section 6A of the CPSA requires the Commission to collect reports of harm from the public for potential publication in the publicly available Database, and to collect and publish comments about reports of harm from manufacturers.
The Commission announced that a proposed collection of information in conjunction with the Database, called the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database, had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520 in a proposed rule published on May 24, 2010 (75 FR 29156). The Commission issued a final rule on the Database on December 9, 2010 (75 FR 76832). The final rule interprets various statutory requirements in section 6A of the CPSA pertaining to the information to be included in the Database and also establishes provisions regarding submitting reports of harm; providing notice of reports of harm to manufacturers; publishing reports of harm and manufacturer comments in the Database; and dealing with confidential and materially inaccurate information.
OMB approved the collection of information for the Database under control number 3041–0146. OMB's most recent extension of approval will expire on January 31, 2014. The Commission now proposes to request an extension of approval of this collection of information.
The primary purpose of this information collection is to populate the publicly searchable Database of consumer product safety information mandated by section 6A of the CPSA. There are four components to the information collection: Reports of harm, manufacturer comments, branding information, and the Small Batch Manufacturer Registry (SBMR).
A manufacturer may request that the Commission designate information in a report of harm as confidential. Such a request may be made using the business portal, by email, by mail, or by fax. Also, any person or entity reviewing a report of harm or manufacturer comment, either before or after publication in the Database, may request that the report or comment, or portions of the report or comment, be excluded from the Database because the report or comment contains materially inaccurate information. Such a request may be made by manufacturers using the business portal, by email, mail or fax, and may be submitted by anyone else by email, mail, or fax.
We estimate
Based on the data set forth in tables 1 and 2 above, the annual reporting cost is estimated to be $1,086,332. This estimate is based on the sum of two estimated figures for reports of harm and manufacturer submissions. The estimated number of respondents and responses are based on the actual responses received in FY 2012. We assume that the number of responses and respondents will be similar in future years.
To estimate the costs for submitting reports of harm we multiplied the estimated total burden hours associated with reports of harm (1,641 hours + 625 hours + 2,022 hours = 4,288 hours) by an estimated total compensation for all workers in private industry of $29.13 per hour,
To estimate the burden associated with submitting a general comment regarding a report of harm through the business portal, we averaged the burden provided by each company within each group and then calculated a weighted average from the three groups, weighting each group by the proportion of comments received from that group. We found that the average time to submit a general comment regarding a report of harm is 116 minutes based on the data in table 3 (((10 minutes + 180 minutes)/2 companies)*.46 + ((10 minutes + 30 minutes)/2 companies)*.36 + ((240 minutes + 480 minutes)/2 companies)*.18 = 116 minutes).
Registered businesses generally submit comments through our Web site. Unregistered businesses submit comments by mail, email, or fax. We estimate that submitting comments in this way takes a little longer because we often must ask the business to amend their submission to include the required certifications. Thus, we estimated that on average, comments submitted by mail, email, or fax take 30 minutes longer than those submitted through our Web site (116 minutes + 30 minutes = 146 minutes).
The submission of a claim of materially inaccurate information is a relatively rare event for all respondents, so we averaged all responses together. Four of the businesses contacted had submitted claims of materially inaccurate information during FY 2012. We found that the average time to submit a claim that a report of harm contains a material inaccuracy is 438 minutes ((10 minutes + 120 minutes + 180 minutes + 1,440 minutes)/4 companies = 438 minutes).
Registered businesses generally submit claims through the business portal. Unregistered businesses submit claims by mail, email, or fax. We estimate that submitting claims in this way takes a little longer because we often must ask the business to amend their submission to include the required certifications. Thus, we estimated that on average, claims submitted by mail, email, or fax take 30 minutes longer than those submitted through our Web site (438 minutes + 30 minutes = 468 minutes).
We had previously estimated that confidential information claims submitted through our Web site would take 15 minutes because the information to be entered would be readily accessible by the respondent. We have found that confidential information claims are very rare and do not have enough information to update this estimate. Although we have not received any confidential information claims by mail, email, or fax, based on our experience with comments and claims of materially inaccurate information, we estimate that a confidential information claim submitted by mail, email, or fax would take 30 minutes longer than those submitted through our Web site (15 minutes + 30 minutes = 45 minutes).
For voluntary brand identification, we estimate that a response would take 10 minutes on average. Most responses consist only of the brand name and a product description. In many cases a business will submit multiple entries in a brief period of time and we can see from the date and time stamps on these records that an entry often takes less than two minutes. CPSC staff enters the same data in a similar form based on our own research, and that experience was also factored into our estimate.
For small batch manufacturer identification, we estimate that a response would take 10 minutes on average. The form consists of three check boxes and the information should be readily accessible to the respondent.
The responses summarized in Table 2 are generally submitted by manufacturers. To avoid underestimating the cost associated with the collection of this data, we assigned the higher hourly wage associated with a manager or professional in goods-producing industries to these tasks. To estimate the cost of manufacturer submissions we multiplied the estimated total burden hours in Table 2 (15,557 hours) by an estimated total compensation for a manager or professional in goods-producing industries of $61.80 per hour,
Therefore, the total estimated annual cost to respondents is $1,086,332 ($124,909 burden for reports of harm + $961,423 burden for manufacturer submissions = $1,086,332).
The annualized cost to the CPSC is estimated to be $1,028,794. This figure is based on the costs for four categories of work for the Database: Reports of Harm, Materially Inaccurate Information Claims, Manufacturer Comments, and Small Batch Identification. Each category is described below. No government cost is associated with Voluntary Brand Identification because this information is entered directly into the Database by the manufacturer with no processing required by the government. The information assists the government in directing reports of harm to the correct manufacturer. We did not attempt to separately calculate the government cost for claims of confidential information because the number of claims is so small. The time to process these claims is included with claims of materially inaccurate information.
The Reports of Harm category also includes sending consent requests for reports when necessary, processing that consent when received, determining whether a product is out of CPSC's jurisdiction, and confirming that pictures and attachments do not have any personally identifiable information. The Reports category also entails notifying manufacturers when one of their products is reported, completing a risk of harm determination form for every report eligible for publication, referring some reports to a Subject Matter Expert (SME) within the CPSC for a determination on whether the reports meet the requirement of having a risk of harm, and determining whether a report meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements for publication. Detailed costs are described in Table 4.
We estimate the annualized cost to the CPSC of $1,028,794 by adding the four categories of work related to the Database summarized in Tables 4 through 7 (Reports of Harm ($843,226.96) + MII Claims ($150,505.00) + Manufacturer Comments ($18,793.06) + Small Batch Identification ($16,269.12) = $1,028,794).
This information collection renewal request based on an estimated 19,845 burden hours per year for the Database is a decrease of 17,284 hours since this collection of information was last approved by OMB in 2011. The decrease in burden is due primarily to the fact that the number of responses was overestimated in our original request.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013, 10 a.m.–12 p.m.
Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504–7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504–7923.
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Notice of meeting.
The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) announces its next meeting.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The meeting will take place in the third floor main conference room at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th St. NW., Washington, DC 20531.
Visit the Web site for the Coordinating Council at
The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, established pursuant to Section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) will meet to carry out its advisory functions under Section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5601, et seq. Documents such as meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, and reports will be available on the Council's Web page,
Although designated agency representatives may attend, the Council membership is composed of the Attorney General (Chair), the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Vice Chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The nine additional members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States. Other federal agencies take part in Council activities including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, and the Substance and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS.
The preliminary agenda for this meeting includes presentations on and discussion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its implications for adolescent and young adult populations, including youth transitioning from juvenile justice and child welfare systems. In addition, it is anticipated that member agencies and practitioners will provide updates on activities of relevance to the Council.
For security purposes, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must pre-register online at
Photo identification will be required for admission to the meeting.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), 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/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure 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 requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed School Turnaround AmeriCorps Grantee Progress Report (GPR). All AmeriCorps grantees are required to complete a GPR, which is due in October, to complete an abbreviated mid-year GPR due in April, and to complete a final GPR within 90 days of grant closeout. The GPR provides information for CNCS staff to monitor grantee progress and to respond to requests from Congress and other stakeholders.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1)
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3)
(4) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY–TDD) may call 1–800–833–3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Carla Ganiel, (202) 606–6773, or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including 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).
All AmeriCorps grantees complete the GPR, mid-year GPR and a final GPR within 90 days of grant closeout, which provide information for CNCS staff to monitor grantee progress and to respond to requests from Congress and other stakeholders. The information is collected electronically through the eGrants system.
This is a new information request. Although all AmeriCorps grantees are currently required to complete the GPR, School Turnaround grantees are required to report on additional demographic indicators.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or 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.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has
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 Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Three commenters asked which grantees and subgrantees complete which version of the GPR and whether separate sets of instructions are needed for state commissions. Commission subgrantees and national grantees that were new or recompete applicants during the 2013 competition are subject to the new GPR instructions. All other subgrantees and national grantees are subject to the old instructions as revised in this clearance. Commissions that have both types of subgrantees on the same prime grant will complete two separate progress reports, one for each type of grantee. Starting with the 2014 grant year, all subgrantees and national grantees will use the new instructions.
The following chart illustrates which 2013 grantees and subgrantees are subject to which set of GPR instructions:
CNCS will continue to use one set of instructions for all grantees. The reporting screens are nearly identical for state commissions and national grantees, more so than in the previous iteration of the GPR, which had a single set of instructions.
Five commenters stated that the burden of the new GPR is higher than the old GPR and that the burden is higher for state commissions than it is for national grantees. While the change in the way MSYs are reported will increase burden, we believe that this is balanced by the reduction in the number of demographic indicators and, for state commissions, a decrease in burden associated with providing explanations regarding formula subgrantees, which is no longer required. Also, automated completion checks will not allow incomplete progress reports to be submitted which will result in less back and forth between CNCS and grantees. Lastly, CNCS has decided to collect MSY data at the strategic plan level only, not at the performance measure level, to minimize burden.
CNCS acknowledges that the level of burden is higher for some commissions with a large number of subgrantees or multiple prime grants than for other commissions and national grantees. Based on comments and the inclusion of the final GPR due at grant closeout, CNCS has increased the burden estimate.
Four commenters focused on the timeline and testing of the new GPR. CNCS cannot delay the new GPR. Very little new information is required to complete this report. Although the demographic indicators have been revised, all new indicators are optional. No changes have been made to mandatory demographic indicators or to the information collected in the performance measures section of the GPR. The narrative questions require synthesis of information about program activity that is readily available through routine monitoring and technical assistance that is already being conducted. The due date of the end-of-year GPR will not change. Three rounds of user acceptance testing were completed by AmeriCorps program staff in June and July 2013.
Three commenters focused on changes in the demographics tab concerning what is being collected and the utility of some indicators. The demographic indicators have been revised so that they are consistent with the CNCS strategic plan and the Serve America Act.
Three commenters focused on the Member Service Year (MSY) tab and the burden associated with reporting MSYs and member activity. Reporting MSYs and member activity at the level of strategic plan objective, rather than focus area, is critical for CNCS to understand the value of its investment relative to its strategic plan. Member counts at the strategic objective level allow CNCS to state how many members are performing activities under each strategic plan objective. CNCS has chosen not to collect MSY and member
Six commenters focused on CNCS's expectation that programs aim to achieve 100% retention, reliance on data from the portal, and the mechanisms for providing comments on this data. The data in the performance indicator tab (enrollment, retention, 30-day enrollment and 30-day exit data) will refresh for each reporting period. In response to comments, CNCS will only require this tab for the end-of-year GPR due in October 2014 and each year thereafter, and the instructions have been updated to reflect this change. CNCS will request an IT enhancement to add a warning to the performance indicators tab that the data cannot be refreshed once it has been populated. CNCS recognizes that retention rates may vary among effective programs depending on the program model. CNCS will continue to request explanations for any retention rate below 100%. Text boxes are provided for grantees to comment on data from the portal that requires explanation.
Three commenters focused on requiring explanations for incomplete data (performance indicators and performance measures) in the mid-year GPR. CNCS will not include the performance indicators tab in the mid-year GPR. We have updated the instructions for the mid-year GPR with instructions to enter “NA” in the outcome explanation fields as it is a system requirement that some text be entered in these fields.
Two commenters focused on changes in the performance measurement data collected. The performance measure section of the new GPR requires no data that was not collected in the old GPR.
One commenter suggested that CNCS should collect performance measurement data as percentages rather than numerical values. Whole numbers are required so that data can be aggregated across programs.
Five commenters stated that instructions for narrative questions are not clear to state commissions. We have added additional information in the instructions to clarify how state commissions should address the narrative questions.
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Notice of Availability (NOA) for GPW/IT—Tracy Site—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 construct a General Purpose Warehouse and Information Technology Center at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, California—Tracy Site. The EA has been prepared as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969). In addition, the EA complies with DLA Regulation (DLAR) 1000.22. DLA has determined that the proposed action was not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the context of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required.
The public comment period will end 30 days after publication of this NOA in the
You may submit comments to one of the following:
•
•
Ann Engelberger at (703) 767–0705 during normal business hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EST) or by email:
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the annual meeting of the Board of Visitors, Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). This meeting will be conducted as a telephone conference call. Members of the public will be able to listen in on the proceedings. Time is also allotted in the agenda for public comments by individuals and organizations that may wish to address the Board.
Mr. Richard Procell at (913) 684–2963 or
This meeting is open to the public. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 and 41 CFR 102–3.140(c), members of the public or interested groups may submit written statements
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of Availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Wilmington District, Wilmington Regulatory Division is issuing this notice to advise the public that a State of North Carolina funded Supplement Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared describing changes since the release of the July 2011 DEIS for a road improvement project starting at Military Cutoff Road in New Hanover County to north of Hampstead along US 17, Pender County, NC (TIP Projects U–4751 and R–3300). The changes which have necessitated this new supplement include an additional interchange on the north end of the project corridor as well as additional lanes not disclosed in the 2011 DEIS published in the
Written comments on the Draft EIS will be received until December 16, 2013.
Mr. Brad Shaver, Regulatory Project Manager, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, 69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, NC 28403 or Mr. Jay McInnis, Project Engineer, North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699–1548.
Questions about the proposed action and DEIS can be directed to Mr. Brad Shaver, COE—Regulatory Project Manager, telephone: (910) 251–4611 or Mr. Jay McInnis Jr., P.E., NCDOT—Project Engineer, telephone: (919) 707–6029.
The COE in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation prepared a DEIS, originally published in 2011, on a proposal to make transportation improvements to the US 17 and Market Street (US 17 Business) corridor in northern New Hanover and southern Pender Counties. Two North Carolina Department of Transportation Improvement Program (TIPs U–4751 and R–3300) projects are being evaluated as part of the US 17 Corridor Study.
The purpose of the US 17 Corridor Study project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area. The project study area is roughly bounded on the west by I–40, on the north by the Northeast Cape Fear River, Holly Shelter Game Lands to the east, and Market Street and US 17 to the south.
This project is being reviewed through the Merger 01 process designed to streamline the project development and permitting processes, agreed to by the COE, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Division of Water Quality, Division of Coastal Management), Federal Highway Administration (for this project not applicable), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation and supported by other stakeholder agencies and local units of government. The other partnering agencies include: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission; N.C. Department of Cultural Resources; and the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Merger process provides a forum for appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways to facilitate meeting the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the NEPA/SEPA decision-making phase of transportation projects.
Through input from the public and resource agencies the project has been changed to include a second interchange at the northern terminus. Additionally, the project currently proposes additional travel lanes between a previously proposed interchange south of the Topsail High School and the aforementioned northern interchange. These changes were considered substantial changes which the public has not had input and thus necessitates the development and release of the supplement Draft EIS. The original Draft EIS and new Supplement DEIS is available for review on the project Web page:
Any person having difficulty in viewing the document online can contact the COE project manager or the NCDOT project manager for a CD copy of the document.
After distribution and review of the Supplement Draft EIS and Final EIS, the Applicant understands that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in coordination with the North Carolina Department of Transportation will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) for the project. The ROD will document the completion of the EIS process and will serve as a basis for permitting decisions by federal and state agencies.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the US Army Corps of Engineers at the address provided. The Wilmington District will periodically issue Public Notices soliciting public and agency comment on the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action as they are developed.
Department of Navy, DoD.
Notice; correction and extension.
The Department of the Navy published a document in the
Ms. Nora Macariola-See, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. Attention: MITT EIS/OEIS, 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100, Building 258, Floor 3, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860–3134.
1. Tuesday, November 12, 2013, at the University of Guam, Leon Guerrero School of Business and Public Administration Building, Anthony Leon Guerrero Multi-Purpose Room 129, Mangilao, Guam 96923.
2. Wednesday, November 13, 2013, at the Pedro P. Tenorio Multi-Purpose Center in Susupe, Saipan, MP 96950.
3. Thursday, November 14, 2013, at the Tinian High School Cafeteria, San Jose Village, Tinian, MP 96952.
4. Friday, November 15, 2013, at the Sinapalo Elementary School Cafeteria, Sinapalo I, Rota, MP 96951.
All meetings will be held from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 30, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions related to collection activities or burden, please call Kathy Axt, 540–776–7742 or 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)), requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Department review of the information collection. 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.
Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, Department of Education.
Request for information; notice to reopen the public comment period.
On September 5, 2013, we published in the
Written submissions must be received by the Department on or before November 12, 2013.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via U.S. mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID and the term “Technical Assistance-NCELA” at the top of your comments.
•
•
•
To assist us in making a determination on your request, we encourage you to identify any specific information that you consider confidential commercial information. Please list the information by page and paragraph numbers.
This Request for Information (RFI) is issued solely for information and planning purposes and is not a request for proposals (RFP), a promise to issue an RFP, or a notice inviting applications (NIA), nor does it serve as a modification to the current NCELA contract. This RFI does not commit the Department to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, the Department is not now seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. The Department will not pay for any information or administrative costs that you may incur in responding to this RFI.
If you do not respond to this RFI, you may still apply for future contracts and grants. The Department posts RFPs on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site (
The documents and information submitted in response to this RFI become the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.
Melissa Escalante, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5C148, Washington, DC 20202–6132 by phone at 202–401–1407.
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.
On September 5, 2013, we published an RFI in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of orders.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during August 2013, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, and to import and export liquefied natural gas. These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a Board meeting of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463; 86 Stat.770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
December 3, 2013: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; December 4, 2013 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Fairfax at Embassy Row, 2100 Massachusetts Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20008.
Julie Hughes, STEAB Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone: (202) 320–9703, or by email at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The proposed project would use the water from two existing irrigation diversions from Little Timber Creek, and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A new intake structure and fish screen; (2) a new 26,700-foot-long penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing a 750-kilowatt Pelton turbine and 750-kilowatt generator; (4) a new 6.7-mile-long, 12.5-kilovolt electric transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would produce an estimated 2,200 megawatt-hours annually.
The proposed project would use water that currently flows into two unlined irrigation ditches that divert water from Little Timber Creek. The project would combine those two diversions into a single diversion at a new screened intake. The location of the new intake structure would be at the same location as the most downstream ditch diversion. Water would flow through the new intake structure into a 26,700-foot-long steel and plastic penstock to the powerhouse. After passing through the powerhouse, the water would be used for irrigation.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “REPLY COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
You may also register online at
n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
o.
The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
p. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
Take notice that on October 23, 2013, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2013), The City of Pella, Iowa (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and MidAmerican Energy Company (collectively, Respondents), requesting that the Commission enforce the terms of the settlement agreement approved by the Commission on July 16, 2012, in Docket Nos. EL10–77–000 and EL10–77–001.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public comment period and letter peer review.
EPA is announcing a 30-day public comment period for the draft document titled, “Best Practices for Continuous Monitoring of Temperature and Flow in Wadeable Streams” (EPA/600/R–13/170). The EPA also is announcing that either ERG or Versar,
EPA is releasing the draft report for the purposes of public comment and peer review. The draft document is available via the Internet on the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at
The 30-day public comment period begins October 31, 2013, and ends December 2, 2013. Technical comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by December 2, 2013.
The draft document, “Best Practices for Continuous Monitoring of Temperature and Flow in Wadeable Streams,” is available primarily via the Internet on the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at
Comments may be submitted electronically via
For information on the public comment period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center; telephone: 202–566–1752; facsimile: 202–566–9744; or email:
For technical information, contact Dr. Britta Bierwagen, NCEA; telephone: 703–347–8613; facsimile: 703–347–8694; or email:
The lack of continuous temperature and flow data for minimally disturbed, free-flowing freshwater wadeable streams is an impediment to analyses of long-term trends in biological, thermal, and hydrologic data. In recent years, there has been substantial interest in developing regional monitoring networks with states and EPA regional offices to detect long-term climate change-related impacts on aquatic communities in freshwater streams. Current participants, including states in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Southeast, are initiating collection of thermal, hydrologic, and biological data from targeted sites in each state. To help further this effort, EPA and collaborators have written a best practices document to facilitate more uniform and effective collection of continuous temperature and water depth data at ungaged sites in wadeable streams. This document addresses questions related to equipment needs, configuration, placement, installation techniques, data retrieval, and data processing. The collection of these data will further efforts to detect and track climate change-related impacts over the long term, further our understanding of how thermal, hydrologic, and biological conditions vary spatially and temporally and inter-relate to one another, and help inform state and federal agencies on how to attribute altered environmental conditions to climate change versus other stressors.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2013–0723, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeks public comment in connection with the development of a proposed Program Comment to govern review for the construction of positive train control (PTC) wayside facilities under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The ideas the Bureau is considering for the potential Program Comment are described in the referenced Supplementary Information.
Comments are due on November 15, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 13–240; DA 13–1980, by any of the following methods:
People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email:
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
• Stephen Del Sordo, (202) 418–1986 or
• Geoffrey Blackwell, Chief of the FCC's Office of Native Affairs and Policy, at
• Irene Flannery, Deputy Chief of the FCC's Office of Native Affairs and Policy, at
This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice in WT Docket No. 13–240; DA 13–1980, released on September 27, 2013. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to
The purpose of this scoping document is to inform and engage all stakeholders in this important process. The FCC will also release a document substantively identical to this document to initiate formal consultation on the development of the proposed Program Comment with federally recognized Tribal Nations. This document provides a statement of purpose, background on PTC, an overview of PTC infrastructure, an explanation of compliance with section 106 for PTC infrastructure, a discussion of ideas for the proposed Program Comment, a description of next steps, and FCC contact information.
PTC will enable the railroads to improve the safety of freight and passenger train operations by preventing derailments, incursions into work zones, and collisions. The FCC's goal, through Tribal consultation and engagement with the ACHP, SHPOs and stakeholders, is to develop an efficient, practical, and timely review process that ensures full consideration of the effects of PTC facilities on historic properties, including Tribal religious and cultural sites.
Congress mandated that the railroads complete PTC deployment by December 31, 2015. To meet this statutory mandate, the railroads are preparing to install more than 20,000 wayside poles nationwide within the existing railroad bed alongside existing tracks. The freight railroads intend to install wayside poles approximately one to two miles apart along their tracks and at certain switch points and other operational sites. Nearly all of the wayside poles are expected to be
Until recently, the FCC understood that most of the wayside PTC antennas would be installed on existing infrastructure. By May 2013, however, it became clear that most of the wayside facilities, with some exceptions mainly in urban areas, would require new poles. Due to the impending statutory deadline, the railroads have stated that they must begin general deployment of these facilities by early 2014. Accordingly, the FCC seeks the cooperation of all interested parties to develop a Program Comment on an expedited basis. Our goal is to deliver a draft Program Comment to the ACHP for approval in accordance with its procedures by mid-December 2013.
Some of the railroads have also requested to begin deployment of PTC poles along specific segments of track during 2013, prior to development of a draft Program Comment. The FCC believes that by conducting early, focused reviews in limited geographic areas, we can gain valuable experience that will provide useful information for the proposed Program Comment. These early reviews will also help illuminate the extent to which PTC installations have the potential to cause adverse effects. As a central feature of these early reviews, we have scheduled consultative meetings with Tribal Nations that have an interest in the relevant geographic areas in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and in Rapid City, South Dakota. These meetings will enable the FCC and Tribal Nations to share and hear each others' perspectives while working through the issues together in an actual, real world context. In addition to working sessions in which the railroads are expected to participate, these meetings will include government-to-government consultation sessions directly between the FCC and Tribal Nations. The FCC will also schedule appropriate opportunities for SHPOs and other interested parties to participate in the demonstration reviews. We anticipate this process will inform all stakeholders of the important issues involved in the critically important aspects of deploying of PTC, complying with the section 106 process, and promulgating the proposed Program Comment.
PTC is mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110–432, which requires all of the major freight and passenger railroads to deploy PTC systems along most segments of their track by December 31, 2015. Congress enacted the PTC requirement following an accident in Chatsworth, California, that resulted in 25 deaths and injuries to more than 135 passengers. Utilizing radio signals between the locomotive and a land-based network, PTC is capable of remotely controlling or stopping a train that is traveling at an unsafe speed or is approaching danger. PTC will thus safeguard human life and property by preventing injuries, hazardous material spills, and property damage caused by preventable train collisions and over-speed derailments.
PTC involves the construction of facilities in order to use radio spectrum that is licensed by the FCC. Therefore, the FCC considers the installation of PTC infrastructure to be an FCC undertaking under the NHPA. As such, the FCC is required to take into account the potential impacts of PTC facilities on historic properties. To meet that obligation, we are developing this Program Comment pursuant to ACHP procedures.
In many respects, the wayside poles are similar in height, diameter, and depth of foundation to utility poles used to support electric, telephone, and broadband cables. In general, the wayside structures will be specialized metal poles affixed to a concrete or metal foundation at ground level. Many of the wayside poles contain a pivot point that will permit small crews to swing the pole down for maintenance and repairs, thus avoiding the need for crews to climb the poles. At some installations, the communications gear will be affixed to the pole and a small platform will be placed at the base for staging. In other cases, this equipment will be placed in a new or existing small shelter which will be connected to the pole using power and fiber cable connections buried in a shallow trench. The railroads intend to use existing equipment shelters where possible to reduce the fiscal and environmental impacts of PTC.
The wayside poles will be installed in holes typically 5 to 10 feet in depth, although they may be up to 15 feet deep in certain limited situations. The depth of foundation for each pole will depend on the pole's height, soil conditions, and local safety regulations. The holes will be bored by a mechanical arm extending from equipment traveling on the railroad or an existing access road. Many of the foundations will be installed using a helical method through which the pole is screwed directly into the ground with minimal excavation of soil. In other cases, the hole may be excavated using an auger method before the foundation is inserted. Installation will require no ground disturbance other than the foundation hole, a concrete pad for the equipment shelter (where needed) or staging platform, and a shallow trench to connect the wayside pole to an equipment shelter or other wayside facility. Virtually all of the poles will be placed in the ballasted roadbed of the railway on ground that has been disturbed by railroad construction and ongoing maintenance. However, in some cases, the depth of the foundation hole may exceed the depth of the previous disturbance.
The railroads have already determined proposed sites for most of their PTC facilities based on the technical requirements of PTC. Due to the system's technical requirements, the railroads state, there is typically little flexibility in these locations. The railroads have told the FCC that there might be opportunities to move some of the wayside poles over short distances. However, those determinations will have to be site-specific based on the technical requirements for the entire system.
In addition to the wayside poles, the railroads will need to install between 3,000 and 4,000 antennas, typically at heights of 100 to 150 feet, to serve as base stations. These base stations will typically be located farther away from the track. While some of the base station antennas will require new tower construction, the railroads have projected that the majority will be collocated on existing structures. The FCC intends that section 106 review of the new base station structures, as well as collocations to the extent required will be conducted under existing FCC regulations and procedures. Thus, we do not intend for the proposed Program Comment to cover these base station facilities.
The FCC is committed to protecting historic properties under the NHPA, including properties that have religious and cultural significance for Tribal Nations. The FCC has an efficient and successful section 106 review process. The FCC's rules require that applicants follow the ACHP's section 106 regulations, as modified by two
The mandated completion date for PTC and the volume of wayside poles required present challenges to all of those involved in the FCC's existing section 106 process. In each of the past few years, the FCC and its preservation partners have completed the section 106 process for between 10,000 and 12,000 projects. PTC will approximately double that number over each of the next two years, thereby straining the resources of all participants in the process. Moreover, due to the location and physical characteristics of the facilities, the potential for PTC wayside poles to cause adverse effects to historic properties is not likely to be the same as for typical communications towers. In recognition of these facts, the ACHP has recommended that the FCC work with the ACHP and its preservation partners to develop efficiencies that are tailored to the review of PTC wayside facilities, to be memorialized in a Program Comment.
A Program Comment, once approved by the ACHP, would identify alternative section 106 procedures for an applicant to follow in order to ascertain, as required by § 1.1307(a)(4) of the FCC's rules, whether proposed PTC wayside facilities may affect historic properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places, including steps to ensure that Tribal Nations have a full opportunity to participate in review. The Program Comment would not override the FCC's general obligation to consult with federally recognized Tribal Nations under the section 106 process, absent the Tribe's consent that consultation is unneeded.
The FCC has identified several areas in which a Program Comment might appropriately tailor the section 106 process to the review of PTC wayside facilities. Please note that the ideas set forth below are intended to scope issues at a pre-decisional and early point in the process to facilitate productive dialogue, and do not represent decisions that the FCC has already made.
The FCC will follow with information regarding meetings, webinars, or other structured opportunities for dialogue on the proposed Program Comment. This will include information about participation in the upcoming demonstration reviews. In the meantime, we welcome ideas from all interested parties and are happy to meet or talk with you.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
Federal Communications Commission.
2:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 13, 2013.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (entry from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Jean Ellen (202) 434–9950/(202) 708–9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339 for toll free.
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 13, 2013.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (entry from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter
Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Jean Ellen (202) 434–9950/(202) 708–9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339 for toll free.
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 November 15, 2013.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291:
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and the Board's Regulation LL (12 CFR Part 238) to acquire shares of a savings and loan 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 November 15, 2013.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201–2272:
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 25, 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.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Lang, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105–1521:
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2013.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Keri Wallace (202–326–3085), FTC, Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for September 27, 2013), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 12, 2013. Write “Actavis Warner, File No. 131 0152” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Actavis Warner, File No. 131 0152” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to
The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement, modify it, or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”).
Pursuant to a Transaction Agreement dated May 19, 2013, Actavis proposes to acquire Warner Chilcott in a transaction valued at approximately $8.5 billion (“Proposed Acquisition”). The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by lessening competition in the U.S. markets for (1) Generic Femcon FE, (2) Loestrin 24 FE and its generic equivalents, (3) Lo Loestrin FE and its generic equivalents, and (4) Atelvia and its generic equivalents. The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the alleged violations by replacing the competition that would otherwise be eliminated by the Proposed Acquisition.
In human pharmaceutical product markets, price generally decreases as the number of generic competitors increases. Accordingly, the reduction in the number of suppliers within each relevant market has a direct and substantial effect on pricing. When the first generic version of a drug enters the market, it typically competes by selling at a discount to the branded drug. At that point, the brand typically loses most of its sales to the generic version. During the period in which only one generic product is available, the price for the branded product acts as a ceiling above which the generic manufacturer cannot price its product. In most cases, once additional generic versions of the drug enter the market, competition among the generic competitors drives generic pricing down further. Prices continue to decrease incrementally with the entry of the second, third, fourth, and even fifth generic oral pharmaceutical competitor.
Generic drugs are typically launched upon the expiration of the branded product's patents. If the generic company intends to launch its product before the expiration of the branded product's patents, it must notify the FDA and certify that its product does not infringe the branded company's patent or that the branded company's patents are invalid. This is referred to as a Paragraph IV certification. A Paragraph IV certification typically leads to patent infringement litigation between the generic company and branded company. The first company to file a Paragraph IV ANDA has the right to market its generic drug exclusively for a period of 180 days if it is successful in its litigation against the branded drug manufacturer.
Femcon FE is a chewable oral contraceptive tablet that contains progestin and estrogen. Warner Chilcott manufactures and markets the branded version of the drug. Only two companies—Warner Chilcott (via an authorized generic it supplies to Lupin Ltd.
Loestrin 24 FE is a low-dose progestin/estrogen combination oral contraceptive product. Warner Chilcott manufactures and markets the branded version of the drug. No companies currently market a generic version of Loestrin 24 FE. Actavis is likely to be the first generic supplier to compete against Warner Chilcott and no other firm is likely to enter the market for generic Loestrin 24 FE in time to prevent the anticompetitive effects from the Proposed Acquisition.
Lo Loestrin FE is another low-dose progestin/estrogen combination oral contraceptive product. Warner Chilcott manufactures and markets the branded version of the drug. No companies currently market a generic version of Lo Loestrin FE, but Lupin and Actavis each plan to launch a generic product. Both companies are currently engaged in patent litigation with the brand drug manufacturer, but it remains uncertain which firm would receive marketing exclusivity rights from the FDA if it succeeded in defending against Warner Chilcott's claims. Thus, absent the acquisition, Actavis may be the first and only generic competitor to the Warner Chilcott branded product for a period of 180 days.
Atelvia is a delayed-release tablet containing risedronate sodium that is used to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis. Warner Chilcott markets the branded version of the drug. No generic version of the product is currently available in the United States. Actavis, Teva, and Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited all plan to market generic versions of Atelvia, and all three companies are currently engaged in patent litigation with Warner Chilcott. However, uncertainty remains about which one will have marketing exclusivity rights if successful in the litigation. Thus, absent the acquisition, Actavis may be the first and only generic competitor to Warner Chilcott's
Entry Into the markets for generic Femcon FE, Lo Loestrin 24 and its generic equivalents, Loestrin 24 FE and its generic equivalents, and Atelvia and its generic equivalents would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition.
The Proposed Acquisition would cause significant anticompetitive harm to consumers in the U.S. markets for generic Femcon FE, Lo Loestrin 24 and its generic equivalents, Lo Loestrin FE and its generic equivalents, and Atelvia and its generic equivalents. The Proposed Acquisition would eliminate the current competition between the only two significant suppliers of generic Femcon FE, leading to significantly higher prices for this drug. The acquisition may also delay the onset of beneficial generic competition in the markets for Loestrin 24 FE, Lo Loestrin FE, and Atelvia. Evidence, including information regarding the status of the FDA approval process for potential suppliers of generic Loestrin 24 FE, suggests that Actavis will be the first generic supplier to compete against Warner Chilcott's branded product. Moreover, no other generic supplier is likely to enter the market for a significant period of time. Thus, the combined firm would likely delay the entry of Actavis's generic version of Loestrin 24 FE or, at a minimum, cause Actavis's generic drug to compete less vigorously against Warner Chilcott's branded product, resulting in higher prices for consumers. Similarly, in the markets for Lo Loestrin FE and Atelvia, Actavis may be the first and only generic competitor to Warner Chilcott's branded products for a significant period absent the Proposed Acquisition. By eliminating this potential competition between Warner Chilcott and Actavis in each of these markets, the Proposed Acquisition would harm U.S. consumers by substantially increasing the likelihood of higher post-acquisition prices for Lo Loestrin FE and Atelvia.
The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies the Proposed Acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the relevant markets by requiring Actavis to divest to Amneal certain rights and assets related to generic Femcon FE, generic Loestrin 24 FE, generic Lo Loestrin FE, and generic Atelvia no later than ten days after consummating the acquisition. In addition, the Consent Agreement requires Actavis to enter into a supply agreement to provide Amneal with generic versions of the Femcon FE and Loestrin 24 FE products to sell in the United States for up to four years. Amneal is a New Jersey-based generic pharmaceutical company that currently markets 65 products and maintains an active product development pipeline. With its experience in generic markets, Amneal is well positioned to replicate the competition that would otherwise be lost as a result of the Proposed Acquisition.
If the Commission determines that Amneal is not an acceptable acquirer of the assets to be divested, or that the manner of the divestitures is not acceptable, Actavis must unwind the sale to Amneal and divest the products within six months of the date the Order becomes final, to a Commission-approved acquirer. If Actavis fails to divest the products as required, the Commission may appoint a trustee to divest the products.
The proposed Consent Agreement contains several provisions to help ensure that the divestitures are successful. The Order requires Actavis to maintain the economic viability, marketability, and competitiveness of the divestiture products until such time as they are transferred to Amneal or another Commission-approved acquirer. Actavis must also transfer the manufacturing technology for the divestiture products to Amneal and supply Amneal with the generic Femcon FE and Loestrin 24 FE products during the transition period. In addition, the Consent Agreement requires Actavis to relinquish any claim to marketing exclusivity for generic Lo Loestrin FE and Atelvia products to ensure that the incentives of the companies currently leading the patent litigations relating to those products do not change.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Order or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
Renee Chapman, Contact Representative, or Theresa Kingsberry Legal, Assistant. Federal Trade Commission Premerger, Notification Office Bureau of Competition, Room H–303, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3100.
By direction of the Commission.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
The meeting will include an overview of where and how health data standards are used across public health functions, and the current status of public health data standards. The hearing will provide an opportunity for the Standards Subcommittee to hear from individuals representing public health data standards organizations, public health agencies, standards developers, and software/application vendors. Important work has been done in standard development organizations to advance the development of public health standards, and these developments will be highlighted in the discussion.
In addition, the Subcommittees on Population Health and Privacy, Confidentiality and Security will explore the need for convening a future hearing to focus on important considerations for standardized definitions of public health variables, privacy and security, population health management, and community health data, building on recent work by the Committee on health information standardization and community health data initiatives.
Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (301) 458–4EEO (4336) as soon as possible.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
The times shown above are for the Full Committee meeting. Subcommittee breakout sessions are scheduled for late in the afternoon on the first day and early morning the second day. Agendas for these breakout sessions will be posted on the NCVHS Web site (URL below).
Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (301) 458–4EEO (4336) as soon as possible.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Evaluation of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) Quality Demonstration Grant Program: Qualitative Data Collection.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by December 2, 2013.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395–6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by email at
Section 401(a) of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA), Public Law 111–3, amended the Social Security Act (the Act) to enact section 1139A (42 U.S.C. 1320b–9a). AHRQ is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of qualitative data through site visit interviews and focus groups to support a comprehensive, mixed-methods evaluation of the quality demonstration grants authorized under section 1139A(d) of the Act. AHRQ's mission of improving the quality and effectiveness of health care in the United States aligns with evaluating whether, and through what mechanism, projects funded by the CHIPRA demonstration grants improve the quality of care received by children in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
CHIPRA included funding for five-year grants so that States can experiment with and evaluate several promising ideas related to improving
Of the 10 grantee States selected, six are partnering with other States, for a total of 18 demonstration States. The demonstration States are: Colorado (partnering with New Mexico); Florida (with Illinois); Maine (with Vermont); Maryland (with Wyoming and Georgia); Massachusetts; North Carolina; Oregon (with Alaska and West Virginia); Pennsylvania; South Carolina; and Utah (with Idaho). These demonstration States have implemented 51 distinct projects in at least one of five possible grant categories, A to E. Category A grantees are experimenting with and/or evaluating the use of pediatric quality measures, including those in the initial core set of children's health care quality measures (a group of measures developed for state Medicaid and CHIP agencies to report in a standardized fashion to CMS). Category B grantees are promoting health information technologies for improved care delivery and patient outcomes. Category C grantees are implementing the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model of primary care, working with school-based health centers (SBHCs) to improve care, or using other provider-based service delivery models aimed at improving care quality. Category D grantees will evaluate the impact of a model pediatric electronic health record. Category E grantees are testing other State-designed approaches to quality improvement in Medicaid and CHIP. This phase of the project will use qualitative techniques such as in-depth interviews and focus groups.
The first round of interviews for the project was completed in an earlier phase of the project in August of 2012 under an information collection request approved by OMB on February 17th, 2012 (OMB Control No. 0935–0190). While the first round of interviews focused on demonstration goals and early strategies, the second round of interviews described in this information collection request will focus on demonstration outcomes and lessons learned. These interviews are designed to build on the information gathered in the first round to develop a complete picture of demonstration implementation.
AHRQ's goal in performing this evaluation of the CHIPRA Quality Demonstration Grant Program is to produce insights into how best to implement quality improvement programs as well as information on how successful programs can be replicated to improve children's health care quality in Medicaid and CHIP. The specific goals of this project are as follows:
1. Develop a deep, systematic understanding of how CHIPRA demonstration States carried out their grant-funded projects.
2. Understand why the CHIPRA demonstration States pursued certain strategies.
3. Understand whether and how the CHIPRA demonstration States' efforts affected outcomes related to knowledge and behavior change in targeted providers and/or consumers of health care.
4. Identify CHIPRA State activities that measurably improve the nation's health care, especially as it pertains to children.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Mathematica Policy Research Inc., and their subcontractors, the Urban Institute and AcademyHealth, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
To meet the project goals AHRQ will implement the following data collections:
1. Key Staff Interviews—Key staff members are staff directly involved in the design and oversight of grant-funded activities. The purpose of these interviews is to gain insight into the implementation of demonstration projects, to understand contextual factors, and to identify lessons and implications for the broad application and sustainability of projects. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with up to 4 key staff members per state.
2. Implementation Staff Interviews—Other implementation staff are staff involved in the day-to-day implementation of grant-funded projects. These staff members include state agency employees, provider trainers or coaches, health IT vendors, and/or project consultants. The purpose of these interviews is to gain insight into the opportunities and challenges related to key technical aspects of project implementation. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with up to 16 other implementation staff members per state.
3. Stakeholder Interviews—External stakeholders have a direct interest in children's care quality in Medicaid and CHIP. Stakeholders include representatives of managed care organizations, state chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, advocacy organizations for children and families, and social service agencies. These stakeholders will be familiar with the CHIPRA projects and may serve on advisory panels or workgroups related to one or more projects. The interviews will gather insight into the opportunities and challenges related to project implementation, stakeholder satisfaction with their project involvement, and contextual factors. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with up to 8 external stakeholders per state.
4. Health Care Organization Staff Interviews—Depending on the projects a state is implementing, health care organizations participating in demonstration activities can include private practices, public clinics, federally qualified health centers, care management entities, or school based health centers. Interviews will capture information about project-related activities, staff perceptions of outcomes and impacts, and the organizations involvement in other quality-improvement initiatives. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with up to 12 staff members per state.
5. Parent Focus Groups—We will hold in-person focus groups with parents, guardians, or other caregivers of children who are enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP and are served by the medical practices involved in the CHIPRA demonstration. There will be four focus groups in four of the twelve states implementing patient-centered medical home demonstration projects. The number of participants per focus group will range from 8 to 10, resulting in a maximum of 160 adults participating. They will be conducted in English, and also in Spanish in states with high proportions of Hispanic individuals covered by Medicaid.
6. Adolescent Focus Groups—We will hold in-person focus groups with adolescents who are enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP and are served by school-based health centers involved in the CHIPRA demonstration. There will be four focus groups in one of the two
This evaluation is designed to develop a rich understanding of States' implementation activities (goal 1), document the rationale for the selection of particular strategies (goal 2), document provider and parent reported behavior change (goal 3), and assess the perceived impact of those changes on access, quality, and cost of care (goal 4).
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in this evaluation. Key staff interviews will be conducted with up to four persons from each of the 18 CHIPRA demonstration States (72 total) and will last for about 1
About 57 adolescents will be screened to get up to 40 adolescents to participate in four focus groups completed in one State with SBHC demonstration projects. The screener takes 25 minutes to complete and the focus group will last one and a half hours (travel time does not apply because the focus groups will be held on school premises). The total burden for the qualitative evaluation is estimated to be 1,281 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondent's time to participate in this evaluation. The total cost burden for the interviews and focus groups is estimated to be $43,303.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.
The meeting will be held on Friday, November 15, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Eisenberg Conference Center, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850.
Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Management Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850, (301) 427–1456. For press-related information, please contact Alison Hunt at (301) 427–1244.
If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management on (301) 827–4840, no later than Friday, November 1, 2013. The agenda, roster, and minutes are available from Ms. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Ms. Campbell's phone number is (301) 427–1554.
The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) Priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships.
The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.
On Friday, November 15, 2013, there will be a subcommittee meeting for the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. The subcommittee meeting is open the public. The Council meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair and approval of previous Council summary notes. The meeting is open to the public. The meeting will begin with the AHRQ Director presenting an update on current research, programs, and initiatives. Following the Director's Update, the agenda includes updates on Affordable Care Act implementation, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the subcommittee on Strategic Direction. The final agenda will be available on the AHRQ Web site a
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of Five AHRQ Subcommittee Meetings.
The subcommittees listed below are part of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee. Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. These meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. section 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
Due to the Federal government shutdown, AHRQ is republishing its Study Section meetings with new dates. Please see below.
See below for dates of meetings:
Meetings of Healthcare Safety and Quality Improvement Research (HSQR), Healthcare Effectiveness and Outcomes Research (HEQR), Health System and Value Research (HSVR), and Health System
Conference Call of Health Care Research and Training (HCRT) meeting will take place at: AHRQ, (Conference Room TBD), 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850.
(to obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of the meetings.)
Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Office of Extramural Research Education and Priority Populations, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Suite 2000, Rockville, Maryland 20850, Telephone (301) 427–1554.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), AHRQ announces meetings of the scientific peer review groups listed above, which are subcommittees of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) 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.
Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities dictate.
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 LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Steady increases in the rate and severity of
CDC requests Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extension of standardized data collection for an additional three years. The epidemiology of
A total of 600 individuals who develop CDI will be contacted for a telephone interview annually and of those it is estimated that 500 will meet study inclusion criteria. The interview screening is estimated to take 5 minutes and the full telephone interview is estimated to take 40 minutes. Therefore, the total estimated annualized burden for this data collection is estimated to be 383 hours.
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404–639–7570 or send comments to CDC, LeRoy Richardson, 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.
Annual Submission of the Ingredients Added to, and the Quantity of Nicotine Contained in, Smokeless Tobacco Manufactured, Imported, or Packaged in the U.S. (OMB No. 0920–0338, exp. 02/28/2014)—Extension—Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The oral use of smokeless tobacco (SLT) products represents a significant health risk. Smokeless tobacco products contain carcinogens which can cause cancer and a number of non-cancerous oral conditions, as well as leading to nicotine addiction and dependence. Furthermore, SLT use is not a safe substitute for cigarette smoking. Adolescents who use smokeless tobacco are more likely to become cigarette smokers.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Office on Smoking and Health (OSH), has primary responsibility for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) smoking and health program. HHS's overall goal is to reduce death and disability resulting from the use of smokeless tobacco products and other forms of tobacco through programs of information, education and research.
The Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (CSTHEA, 15 U.S.C. 4401 et seq., Pub. L. 99–252) requires each person who manufactures, packages, or imports smokeless tobacco products to provide the Secretary of HHS with a list of ingredients added to tobacco in the manufacture of smokeless tobacco products. CSTHEA further requires submission of the quantity of nicotine contained in each smokeless tobacco product. Finally, the legislation authorizes HHS to undertake research, and to report to Congress (as deemed appropriate) discussing the health effects of these ingredients.
HHS has delegated responsibility for implementing the required information collection to CDC's Office on Smoking and Health. Respondents are not required to submit specific forms; however, they are required to meet reporting guidelines and to submit the ingredient report by chemical name and Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registration Number, consistent with accepted reporting practices for other companies that are required to report ingredients added to other consumer products. Typically, respondents submit a summary report to CDC with the ingredient information for multiple products, or a statement that there are no changes to their previously submitted ingredient report. Respondents may submit the required information to CDC through a designated representative. The information collection is subject to strict confidentiality provisions.
Ingredient reports for new SLT products are due at the time of first importation. Thereafter, ingredient reports are due annually on March 31. Information is submitted to OSH by mailing a written report on the respondent's letterhead, which may be accompanied by a Compact Disc (CD), three-inch floppy disk, or thumb drive. Electronic mail submissions are not accepted. Annual submission reports are mailed to: Office on Smoking and Health, Attention: FCLAA Program Manager, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE., MS F–79, Atlanta, GA 30341–3717. Upon receipt and verification of the annual nicotine and ingredient report, OSH issues a Certificate of Compliance to the respondent.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is requested for three years.
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 CDC, LeRoy Richardson, 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.
List of Ingredients Added to Tobacco in the Manufacture of Cigarette Products (OMB No. 0920–0210, exp. 2/28/2014)—Extension—Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of premature death and disability in the United States. Each year, more than 443,000 premature deaths occur as the result of diseases related to cigarette smoking. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) has the primary responsibility for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) smoking and health program. HHS's overall goal is to reduce death and disability resulting from cigarette smoking and other forms of tobacco use through programs of information, education and research.
The Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984 (CSEA, 15 U.S.C. 1336 or Pub. L. 98–474) requires each person who manufactures, packages, or imports cigarettes to provide the Secretary of HHS with a list of ingredients added to tobacco in the manufacture of cigarettes. The legislation also authorizes HHS to undertake research, and to report to the Congress (as deemed appropriate) discussing the health effects of these ingredients.
HHS has delegated responsibility for implementing the CSEA's ingredient reporting requirements to CDC's OSH. OSH has collected ingredient reports on cigarette products since 1986. Respondents are commercial cigarette manufacturers, packagers, or importers, or their designated representatives. Respondents are not required to submit specific forms; however, they are required to submit a list of all ingredients used in their products. CDC requires the ingredient report to be submitted by chemical name and Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registration Number, consistent with accepted reporting practices for other companies currently required to report ingredients added to other consumer products. Typically, respondents submit a summary report to CDC with the ingredient information for multiple products, or a statement that there are no changes to their previously submitted ingredient report. The estimated burden per response is 6.5 hours. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 501.
Ingredient reports for new products are due at the time of first importation. Thereafter, ingredient reports are due annually on March 31. Information is submitted to OSH by mailing a written report on the respondent's letterhead, which may be accompanied by a compact disk (CD), three-inch floppy disk, or thumb drive. Annual ingredient reports should be mailed to: Office on Smoking and Health, Attention: FCLAA Program Manager, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., MS F–79 Atlanta, GA 30341–3717. Electronic mail submissions are not accepted. Upon receipt and verification of the annual ingredient report, OSH issues a Certificate of Compliance to the respondent.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is requested for three years.
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 LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Surveys of State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Governmental Agencies (OMB Control No. 0920–0879, Exp. 3/31/2013)—Revision—Office of the Director, Office for State, Tribal Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC's mission is to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health—through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats. CDC seeks to accomplish its mission by collaborating with partners throughout the nation and the world to: Monitor health, detect and investigate health problems, conduct research to enhance prevention, develop and advocate sound public health policies, implement prevention strategies, promote healthy behaviors, foster safe and healthful environments, and provide leadership and training.
CDC is requesting a three-year approval for a generic clearance to collect information related to domestic public health issues and services that affect and/or involve state, tribal, local and territorial (STLT) government entities. The respondent universe is comprised of STLT governmental staff or delegates acting on behalf of a STLT agency involved in the provision of essential public health services in the United States. Delegate is defined as a governmental or non-governmental agent (agency, function, office or individual) acting for a principal or submitted by another to represent or act on their behalf. The STLT agency is represented by a STLT entity or delegate with a task to protect and/or improve the public's health. Information will be used to assess situational awareness of current public health emergencies; make decisions that affect planning, response and recovery activities of subsequent emergencies; fill CDC gaps in knowledge of programs and/or STLT governments that will strengthen surveillance, epidemiology, and laboratory science; improve CDC's support and technical assistance to states and communities. CDC will conduct brief data collections, across a range of public health topics related to essential public health services.
CDC estimates up to 30 data collections with STLT governmental staff or delegates, and 10 data collections with local/county/city governmental staff or delegates will be conducted on an annual basis. Ninety-five percent of these data collections will be web-based and five percent telephone, in-person, and focus groups. The total annualized burden of 54,000 hours is based on the following estimates.
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 written or electronic comments on the collection of information by December 30, 2013.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
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.
Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
Sponsors for several prescription drug classes market their products directly to vulnerable groups, including adolescents. Such DTC marketing to adolescents raises a variety of potential concerns. Adolescents are a unique audience for DTC drug marketing because their cognitive abilities are different than those of adults, and they are usually dependent on adults for health insurance coverage, health care provider access, and prescription drug payment. Despite this uniqueness, research regarding how adolescents use risk and benefit information for health-related decisions is limited. If considered at all in healthcare communication research, age is typically treated as simply another segment of the audience (Ref. 1), and researchers fail to consider how
The FD&C Act requires manufacturers, packers, and distributors that advertise prescription drugs to disclose certain information about a product's uses and risks to potential consumers in all advertisements. Consumers must consider tradeoffs with regard to the product's risks and benefits in deciding whether to ask their health care professionals about the product. Presenting technically factual information is important, but other factors can also affect potential consumers. Information processing capacity, the relevance and vividness of the information, and contextual factors such as family dynamics likely affect how adolescent consumers weigh the potential risks and benefits of using a product.
Despite the lack of previous research specific to DTC drug marketing to adolescents, existing theoretical and empirical data make a strong case for treating adolescence as a unique life stage during which vulnerabilities that can affect informed decision-making must be taken into account. Well-known theories of adolescent development have long pointed to developmental changes that occur during the transitional period as an individual moves from childhood to young adulthood (Ref. 2). For instance, Erikson (Refs. 3, 4) describes an often turbulent psychosocial crisis that occurs as adolescents strive to develop their unique identify. Piaget (Refs. 5, 6) and Kohlberg (Ref. 7) describe changes in stages relative to cognitive processing and reasoning that occur in this period, as the adolescent becomes increasingly capable of more abstract thinking. Different cognitive, social and emotional, and developmental processes in the adolescent brain mature simultaneously and at different rates, affecting decision-making by age. All of these factors can influence how adolescents perceive and process information as well as weigh risks and benefits.
The need for understanding how adolescents weigh risks and benefits is particularly critical given the potential
We plan to conduct a randomized, controlled study in two different medical conditions that assesses adolescents' perceptions following exposure to different types of DTC prescription drug advertising. We plan to compare adolescents' perceptions to those of young adult counterparts. Each participant will view a web-based promotional campaign for either a fictitious Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) medication or a fictitious acne medication. Because adolescents typically depend on their parents for prescription drug purchases, we also will include a sample of parents matched to their adolescent children to explore similarities and differences in perceptions for these matched pairs.
Within the two medical conditions, we propose to explore the role of three different factors that may influence adolescent understanding and perceptions of DTC. Two of these factors include timing issues: the timing of the onset of benefits and the timing of the onset of risks. Adolescents may be particularly likely to give more credence to benefits that occur immediately and may be likely to discount risks that do not occur immediately. Research suggests that the frontal lobe, which controls self-regulatory functions, is not fully developed until the mid-20s (Ref. 8), which may lead to difficulty in impulse control and planning, and thus decision-making. Other research suggests that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior, although whether they do this because they discount their own likelihood of experiencing risks or if they cannot help themselves despite having adequate perceptions of their own vulnerability has not been determined (Refs. 9, 10). Given the variety of prescription drug products on the market with varying benefit and risk profiles, these factors (benefit and risk timing) will enable us to investigate its role in adolescent processing of DTC ads.
We also propose to determine whether the severity of the risk within each condition influences adolescent decision-making in relation to DTC. Risk perceptions and risk taking have been active topics of exploration with regard to adolescents and thus the severity of the risks may play a role in determining whether and how adolescents attend to the benefit-risk profile of the prescription drugs they see advertised. This factor will also help us generalize further to different types of products, although we recognize that it will not cover the gamut of prescription drug products.
Although the variables we are examining are all attributes of the drug products themselves and do not reflect particular behaviors of sponsors, this information will be crucial in determining what types of prescription drugs may require additional care when advertising them to adolescents. One strength of the proposed study is that with two different medical conditions and multiple different variations in the benefit and risk profiles of the drugs, we will obtain a good representation of adolescent response to DTC ads. Moreover, in comparing adolescents with adults, we will have a better idea of how perceptions and understanding of benefits and risks in DTC ads differ across this part of the lifespan.
Within each of the two medical conditions, we will randomly assign participants to one of a number of experimental conditions. We propose for each medical condition a 2 (risk onset: immediate, delayed) × 2 (benefit onset: immediate, delayed) × 2 (risk severity: high, low) factorial design, based on the rationale in the prior section.
We will use the same risk (within medical conditions) to control for differences in severity (e.g. dry skin vs. cancer) and avoid confounds.
We will conduct the studies with two medical conditions that have particular relevance for adolescents—acne and ADHD. For acne, we will target a sample that has been diagnosed with, or, through self-report, has experienced the condition. For ADHD, we will target a sample that has been diagnosed with the condition. If an appropriate sample size cannot be obtained for ADHD, we will extend the sample by including adolescents with family members who have been diagnosed with ADHD to help ensure participants are interested in and paying attention to the topic.
The study will enroll three specific age groups (13–15, 16–19, and 25–30). We propose to explore differences in effects of the ad manipulations across these three age groups on a variety of outcomes, including benefit and risk recall, benefit and risk perceptions, and behavioral intentions. Certain ads may communicate more or less effectively with specific age groups. The presentation of immediate versus delayed risks, for example, might differentially affect teens and young adults. Additionally, we propose to examine factors unique to adolescent healthcare including relationship between parent and child, issues of stigma, and risk taking.
We will also recruit parents of the two younger age groups into the sample to explore potential differences between teen and parental perceptions. There are three reasons for including parents in the sample:
1. Adolescents and adults bring varied experiences and developmental capacities to everyday decisions. As a result, they may differ both in their perceptions of risks and benefits and in their evaluations of DTC. Matching parents and adolescents in the sample will allow us to conduct additional analyses to explore similarities and differences between parental and adolescent perceptions. By having parents of two age groups, we can compare these groups to see if there are differences in parent-child risk-perception concordance/discordance across adolescence as a function of age.
2. Parents will serve as a fourth age group, which will allow us to conduct additional comparisons between the age categories. Increasing the number of age categories will allow us to look for differences between a greater range of age groups, and to see if clear patterns of age differences exist (e.g., it could be that the most significant differences are observed when comparing young adolescents and those over 30 years of age).
3. Including parent-child dyads will address the need for empirical data comparing adolescents' and their parents' evaluations of DTC prescription drug advertising.
Select experimental conditions will be pretested with 1061 participants to assess questionnaire wording and implementation. Based on power analyses, the main study will include 5,120 completed participants, which will allow us enough power to test several possible covariates (factors other than our manipulated variables) that may have effects, such as demographic information.
The protocol will take place via the Internet. Participants will be randomly assigned to view one Web site ad for a fictitious prescription drug that treats either acne or ADHD and will answer questions about it. The entire process is expected to take no longer than 30 minutes. This will be a one-time (rather than annual) collection of information.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The total respondent sample for this data collection is 6,350, including the two pretests. We estimate the response burden to be 30 minutes, for a total collection burden, including screeners, of 6,472 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 2, 2013.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under sections 532 through 542 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360ii through 360ss), FDA has the responsibility to protect the public from unnecessary exposure of radiation from electronic products. The regulations issued under these authorities are listed in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, subchapter J, parts 1000 through 1050 (21 CFR parts 1000 through 1050).
Section 532 of the FD&C Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), to establish and carry out an electronic product radiation control program, including the development, issuance, and administration of performance standards to control the emission of electronic product radiation from electronic products. The program is designed to protect the public health and safety from electronic radiation, and the FD&C Act authorizes the Secretary to procure (by negotiation or otherwise) electronic products for research and testing purposes and to sell or otherwise dispose of such products. Section 534(g) of the FD&C Act directs the Secretary to review and evaluate industry testing programs on a continuing basis; and section 535(e) and (f) of the FD&C Act directs the Secretary to immediately notify manufacturers of, and ensure correction of, radiation defects or noncompliance with performance standards. Section 537(b) of the FD&C Act contains the authority to require manufacturers of electronic products to establish and maintain records (including testing records), make reports, and provide information to determine whether the manufacturer has acted in compliance.
The regulations under parts 1002 through 1010 specify reports to be provided by manufacturers and distributors to FDA and records to be maintained in the event of an investigation of a safety concern or a product recall. FDA conducts laboratory compliance testing of products covered by regulations for product standards in parts 1020, 1030, 1040, and 1050.
FDA details product-specific performance standards that specify information to be supplied with the product or require specific reports. The information collections are either specifically called for in the FD&C Act or were developed to aid the Agency in performing its obligations under the FD&C Act. The data reported to FDA and the records maintained are used by
FDA uses the following forms to aid respondents in the submission of information for this information collection:
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The respondents to this information collection are electronic product and x-ray manufacturers, importers, and assemblers. The burden estimates were derived by consultation with FDA and industry personnel, and are based on data collected from industry, including recent product report submissions. An evaluation of the type and scope of information requested was also used to derive some time estimates.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The following requirements are not subject to review by OMB because they do not constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA: Sections 1002.31(c), 1003.10(a) through (c), 1003.11(a)(3) and (b), 1003.20(a) through (h), 1003.21(a) through (d), 1003.22(a) and (b), 1003.30(a) and (b), 1003.31(a) and (b), 1004.2(a) through (i), 1004.3(a) through (i), 1004.4(a) through (h), 1005.21(a) through (c), and 1005.22(b). These requirements apply to the collection of information during the conduct of investigations or audits (5 CFR 1320.4).
The following labeling requirements are not subject to review under the PRA because they are a public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)): Sections 1030.10(c)(6); 1040.10(g); 1040.20(d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(i), and (d)(2)(iii); and 1040.30(c)(1).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 2, 2013.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed
This guidance describes the Pre-Submission program for medical devices reviewed in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). The guidance provides recommendations regarding the information that should be submitted in a Pre-Submission Package and procedures that should be followed for meetings between CDRH and CBER staff and industry representatives or application sponsors. In addition to Pre-Submissions, the guidance addresses other feedback mechanisms including Informational Meetings, Study Risk Determinations, Formal Early Collaboration Meetings, and Submission Issue Meetings and the procedures to request feedback using these mechanisms. When approved by OMB, this guidance document will supersede “Pre-IDE Program: Issues and Answers—Blue Book Memo D99–1” dated March 25, 1999.
A Pre-Submission is defined as a formal written request from an applicant for feedback from FDA to be provided in the form of a formal written response or, if the manufacturer chooses, a meeting or teleconference in which the feedback is documented in meeting minutes. A Pre-Submission is appropriate when FDA's feedback on specific questions is necessary to guide product development and/or application preparation. The proposed collections of information are necessary to allow the Agency to receive Pre-Submission Packages in order to implement this voluntary submission program.
Over time, the FDA pre-investigational device exemption (pre-IDE) program evolved to include feedback on premarket approval (PMA) applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designations (de novo petitions), 510(k) submissions, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments categorization requests, as well as to address questions related to whether a clinical study requires submission of an IDE. During discussions with representatives of the medical device industry in the development of the Agency's recommendations for the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2012 (MDUFA III) (Pub. L. 112–144), both the industry and the Agency agreed that the Pre-Submission (formerly pre-IDE) process provided important additional transparency to the IDE and premarket review processes. In response, the Secretary's 2012 Commitment Letter to Congress (MDUFA III Commitment Letter) included FDA's commitment to institute a structured process for managing Pre-Submissions.
To fulfill the Secretary's commitment to the industry, this final guidance: (1) Describes the Pre-Submission program (formerly the IDE program) for medical devices reviewed in CDRH and CBER; (2) describes other feedback mechanisms including Informational Meetings, Study Risk Determinations, Formal Early Collaboration Meetings, and Submission Issue Meetings; (3) assists device manufacturers and their representatives who seek meetings with the FDA by providing guidance and recommendations regarding information that should be included in a Pre-Submission Package or other request for feedback; and (4) provides guidance as to the procedures that CDRH and CBER intend to follow when industry representatives or application sponsors request a meeting with review staff.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Respondents are medical device manufacturers subject to FDA's laws and regulations. FDA estimates that it will receive approximately 2,544 pre-submission packages annually. The Agency reached this estimate by reviewing the number of submissions received by the Agency under the Pre-IDE program over the past 10 years. Based on FDA's experience with the Pre-IDE program, FDA expects the Pre-Submission program to continue to be utilized as a viable program in the future and expects that the number of pre-submission packages will increase over its current rate and reach a steady state of approximately 2,544 submissions per year.
FDA estimates from past experience with the Pre-IDE program that the complete process involved with the program takes approximately 137 hours. This average is based upon estimates by FDA administrative and technical staff that is familiar with the requirements for submission of a Pre-Submission and related materials, have consulted and advised manufacturers on these requirements, and have reviewed the documentation submitted.
Therefore, the total reporting burden hours is estimated to be 348,528 hours.
The average to industry per hour for this type of work is $150, resulting in a cost of $20,550 per respondent. The estimated submission cost of $20,550 multiplied by 2,544 submissions per year equals $52,279,200, which is the aggregated industry reporting cost annualized.
FDA's annual estimate of 2,544 submissions is based on experienced trends over the past several years. FDA's administrative and technical staffs, who are familiar with the requirements for current pre-submissions, estimate that an average of 137 hours is required to prepare a pre-submission. However, we recognize there is a variance in the preparation submission because of the vast and varying complexities of medical devices.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 2, 2013.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262), manufacturers of biological products must submit a license application for FDA review and approval before marketing a biological product in interstate commerce. Licenses may be issued only upon showing that the establishment and the products for which a license is desired meets standards prescribed in regulations designed to ensure the continued safety, purity, and potency of such products. All such licenses are issued, suspended, and revoked as prescribed by regulations in part 601 (21 CFR part 601).
Section 130(a) of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–115) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) by adding a new provision (section 506B of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 356b)) requiring reports of postmarketing studies for approved human drugs and licensed biological products. Section 506B of the FD&C Act provides FDA with additional authority to monitor the progress of postmarketing studies that applicants have made a commitment to conduct and requires the Agency to make publicly available information that pertains to the status of these studies. Under section 506B(a) of the FD&C Act, applicants that have committed to conduct a postmarketing study for an approved human drug or licensed biological product must submit to FDA a status report of the progress of the study or the reasons for the failure of the applicant to conduct the study. This report must be submitted within 1 year after the U.S. approval of the application and then annually until the study is completed or terminated.
A summary of the collection of information requirements follows:
Section 601.2(a) requires a manufacturer of a biological product to submit an application on forms prescribed for such purposes with accompanying data and information, including certain labeling information, to FDA for approval to market a product in interstate commerce. The container and package labeling requirements are provided under §§ 610.60 through 610.65 (21 CFR 610.60 through 610.65). The estimate for these regulations is included in the estimate under § 601.2(a) in table 1 of this document.
Section 601.5(a) requires a manufacturer to submit to FDA notice of its intention to discontinue manufacture of a product or all products. Section 601.6(a) requires the manufacturer to notify selling agents and distributors upon suspension of its license, and provide FDA of such notification.
Section 601.12(a)(2) requires, generally, that the holder of an approved Biologics Licensing Application (BLA) must assess the effects of a manufacturing change before distributing a biological product made with the change. Section 601.12(a)(4) requires, generally, that the applicant must promptly revise all promotional labeling and advertising to make it consistent with any labeling changes implemented. Section 601.12(a)(5) requires the applicant to include a list of all changes contained in the supplement or annual report; for supplements, this list must be provided in the cover letter. The burden estimates for § 601.12(a)(2) are included in the
Sections 601.12(b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(5), (d)(1), and (d)(3) require applicants to follow specific procedures to submit information to FDA of any changes in the product, production process, quality controls, equipment, facilities, or responsible personnel established in an approved license application. The appropriate procedure depends on the potential for the change to have a substantial, moderate, or minimal adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the products as they may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the product. Under § 601.12(b)(4), an applicant may ask FDA to expedite its review of a supplement for public health reasons or if a delay in making the change described in it would impose an extraordinary hardship of the applicant. The burden estimate for § 601.12(b)(4) is minimal and included in the estimate under § 601.12(b)(1) and (b)(3) in table 1 of this document.
Section 601.12(e) requires applicants to submit a protocol, or change to a protocol, as a supplement requiring FDA approval before distributing the product. Section 601.12(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) requires applicants to follow specific procedures to report certain labeling changes to FDA. Section 601.12(f)(4) requires applicants to report to FDA advertising and promotional labeling and any changes.
Under § 601.14, the content of labeling required in 21 CFR 201.100(d)(3) must be in electronic format and in a form that FDA can process, review, and archive. This requirement is in addition to the provisions of §§ 601.2(a) and 601.12(f). The burden estimate for § 601.14 is minimal and included in the estimate under §§ 601.2(a) (BLAs) and 601.12(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) (labeling supplements and annual reports) in table 1 of this document.
Section 601.45 requires applicants of biological products for serious or life-threatening illnesses to submit to the Agency for consideration, during the pre-approval review period, copies of all promotional materials, including promotional labeling as well as advertisements.
In addition to §§ 601.2 and 601.12, there are other regulations in 21 CFR parts 640, 660, and 680 that relate to information to be submitted in a license application or supplement for certain blood or allergenic products as follows: §§ 640.6; 640.17; 640.21(c); 640.22(c); 640.25(c); 640.56(c); 640.64(c); 640.74(a) and (b)(2); 660.51(a)(4); and 680.1(b)(2)(iii) and (d).
In table 1 of this document, the burden associated with the information collection requirements in the applicable regulations is included in the burden estimate for §§ 601.2 and/or 601.12. A regulation may be listed under more than one subsection of § 601.12 due to the type of category under which a change to an approved application may be submitted.
There are also additional container and/or package labeling requirements for certain licensed biological products including: § 640.74(b)(3) and (4) for Source Plasma Liquid; § 640.84(a) and (c) for Albumin; § 640.94(a) for Plasma Protein Fraction; § 660.2(c) for Antibody to Hepatitis B Surface Antigen; § 660.28(a), (b), and (c) for Blood Grouping Reagent; § 660.35(a), (c through g), and (i through m) for Reagent Red Blood Cells; § 660.45 for Hepatitis B Surface Antigen; and § 660.55(a) and (b) for Anti-Human Globulin. The burden associated with the additional labeling requirements for submission of a license application for these certain biological products is minimal because the majority of the burden is associated with the requirements under §§ 610.60 through 610.65 or 21 CFR 809.10. Therefore, the burden estimates for these regulations are included in the estimate under §§ 610.60 through 610.65 in table 1 of this document. The burden estimates associated with § 809.10 are approved under OMB control number 0910–0485.
Section 601.25(b) requests interested persons to submit, for review and evaluation by an advisory review panel, published and unpublished data and information pertinent to a designated category of biological products that have been licensed prior to July 1, 1972. Section 601.26(f) requires that licensees submit to FDA a written statement intended to show that studies adequate and appropriate to resolve the questions raised about a biological product have been undertaken for a product if designated as requiring further study under the reclassification procedures. Under § 601.25(b), FDA estimates no further burden for this regulation, and therefore this regulation is not included in table 1 of this document. Under section 601.26(f), FDA estimates no burden for this regulation since there are no products designated to require further study and none are predicted in the future. However, FDA is using an estimate of 1 for calculation purposes. Based on the possible reclassification of a product, the labeling for the product may need to be revised, or a manufacturer, on its own initiative, may deem it necessary for further study. As a result, any changes to product labeling would be reported under the appropriate subsection of § 601.12.
Section 601.27(a) requires that applications for new biological products contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration information. Section 601.27(b) provides that an applicant may request a deferred submission of some or all assessments of safety and effectiveness required under § 601.27(a) until after licensing the product for use in adults. Section 601.27(c) provides that an applicant may request a full or partial waiver of the requirements under § 601.27(a) with adequate justification. The burden estimates for § 601.27(a) are included in the burden estimate under § 601.2(a) in table 1 of this document since these regulations deal with information to be provided in an application.
Section 601.28 requires sponsors of licensed biological products to submit the information in § 601.28(a), (b), and (c) to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) or to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) each year, within 60 days of the anniversary date of approval of the license. Section 601.28(a) requires sponsors to submit to FDA a brief summary stating whether labeling supplements for pediatric use have been submitted and whether new studies in the pediatric population to support appropriate labeling for the pediatric population have been initiated. Section 601.28(b) requires sponsors to submit to FDA an analysis of available safety and efficacy data in the pediatric population and changes proposed in the labeling based on this information. Section 601.28(c) requires sponsors to submit to FDA a statement on the current status of any postmarketing studies in the pediatric population performed by, on or behalf of, the applicant. If the postmarketing studies were required or agreed to, the status of these studies is to be reported under § 601.70 rather than under this section.
Sections 601.33 through 601.35 clarify the information to be submitted in an application to FDA to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of radiopharmaceuticals intended for in vivo administration for diagnostic and monitoring use. The burden estimates for §§ 601.33 through 601.35 are included in the burden estimate under § 601.2(a) in table 1 of this document
Section 601.70(b) requires each applicant of a licensed biological product to submit annually a report to FDA on the status of postmarketing studies for each approved product application. Each annual postmarketing status report must be accompanied by a completed transmittal Form FDA 2252 (Form FDA 2252 approved under OMB control number 0910–0001). Under § 601.70(d), two copies of the annual report shall be submitted to FDA.
Sections 601.91 through 601.94 concern biological products for which human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. Section 601.91(b)(2) requires, in certain circumstances, such postmarketing restrictions as are needed to ensure the safe use of the biological product. Section 601.91(b)(3) requires applicants to prepare and provide labeling with relevant information to patients or potential patients for biological products approved under part 601, subpart H, when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible (or based on evidence of effectiveness from studies in animals). Section 601.93 provides that biological products approved under subpart H are subject to the postmarketing recordkeeping and safety reporting applicable to all approved biological products. Section 601.94 requires applicants under subpart H to submit to the Agency for consideration during preapproval review period copies of all promotional materials including promotional labeling as well as advertisements. Under § 601.91(b)(2) and § 601.93, any potential postmarketing reports and/or recordkeeping burdens would be included under the adverse experience reporting (AER) requirements under 21 CFR part 600 (OMB control number 0910–0308). Therefore, any burdens associated with these requirements would be reported under the AER information collection requirements (OMB control number 0910–0308). The burden estimate for § 601.91(b)(3) is included in the estimate under §§ 610.60 through 610.65.
Section 610.9(a) (21 CFR 610.9(a)) requires the applicant to present certain information, in the form of a license application or supplement to the application, for a modification of any particular test method or manufacturing process or the conditions which it is conducted under the biologics regulations. The burden estimate for § 610.9(a) is included in the estimate under §§ 601.2(a) and 601.12(b) and (c) in table 1 of this document.
Section 610.11(g)(2) (21 CFR 610.11(g)(2)) provides that a manufacturer of certain biological products may request an exemption from the general safety test (GST) requirements contained in subpart H. Under § 610.11(g)(2), FDA requires only those manufacturers of biological products requesting an exemption from the GST to submit additional information as part of a license application or supplement to an approved license application. Therefore, the burden estimate for § 610.11(g)(2) is included in the estimate under §§ 601.2(a) and 601.12(b) in table 1 of this document.
Under 21 CFR 610.15(d) (21 CFR 610.15(d)), the Director of CBER or the Director of CDER may approve, as appropriate, a manufacturer's request for exceptions or alternatives to the regulation for constituent materials. Manufacturers seeking approval of an exception or alternative must submit a request in writing with a brief statement describing the basis for the request and the supporting data.
Section 640.120 requires establishments to submit a request for an exception or alternative to any requirement in the biologics regulations regarding blood, blood components, or blood products. For licensed establishments, a request for an exception or alternative must be submitted in accordance with § 601.12. The burden estimate for § 640.120 is included in the estimate under § 601.12(b) in table 1 of this document.
Section 680.1(c) requires manufacturers to update annually their license file with the list of source materials and the suppliers of the materials. Section 680.1(b)(3)(iv) requires manufacturers to notify FDA when certain diseases are detected in source materials.
Sections 600.15(b) and 610.53(d) (21 CFR 610.53(d)) require the submission of a request for an exemption or modification regarding the temperature requirements during shipment and from dating periods, respectively, for certain biological products. Section 606.110(b) (21 CFR 606.110(b)) requires the submission of a request for approval to perform plasmapheresis of donors who do not meet certain donor requirements for the collection of plasma containing rare antibodies. Under §§ 600.15(b), 610.53(d), and 606.110(b), a request for an exemption or modification to the requirements would be submitted as a supplement. Therefore, the burden hours for any submissions under §§ 600.15(b), 610.53(d), and 606.110(b) are included in the estimates under § 601.12(b) in table 1 of this document.
In July 1997, FDA revised Form FDA 356h “Application to Market a New Drug, Biologic, or an Antibiotic Drug for Human Use” to harmonize application procedures between CBER and CDER. The application form serves primarily as a checklist for firms to gather and submit certain information to FDA. As such, the form, now entitled “Application to Market a New or Abbreviated New Drug or Biologic for Human Use” helps to ensure that the application is complete and contains all the necessary information, so that delays due to lack of information may be eliminated. In addition, the form provides key information to FDA for efficient handling and distribution to the appropriate staff for review. The estimated burden hours for nonbiological product submissions to CDER using Form FDA 356h are approved under OMB control number 0910–0001 (an estimated 3,200 submissions × 24 hours = 76,800 hours).
Form FDA 2567 “Transmittal of Labels and Circulars” may be used by manufacturers of licensed biological products to submit labeling (e.g., circulars, package labels, container labels, etc.) and labeling changes for FDA review and approval. For advertisements and promotional labeling, manufacturers of licensed biological products may submit to CBER either Form FDA 2567 or 2253. Form FDA 2253 was previously used only by drug manufacturers regulated by CDER. In August 1998, FDA revised and harmonized Form FDA 2253 so the form may be used to transmit specimens of promotional labeling and advertisements for biological products as well as for prescription drugs and antibiotics. The revised, harmonized form updates the information about the types of promotional materials and the codes that are used to clarify the type of advertisement or labeling submitted, clarifies the intended audience for the advertisements or promotional labeling (e.g., consumers, professionals, news services), and helps ensure that the submission is complete. Form FDA 2253 is approved under OMB control number 0910–0001.
Under tables 1 and 2 of this document, the numbers of respondents are based on the estimated annual number of manufacturers that submitted the required information to FDA or the number of submissions FDA received in fiscal year 2012. Based on information obtained from FDA's database systems, there are an estimated 323 licensed biologics manufacturers. The total annual responses are based on the estimated number of submissions (i.e., license applications, labeling and other
Under §§ 601.2 and 601.12, the estimated hours per response are based on the average number of hours to submit the various submissions. The estimated average number of hours is based on the range of hours to complete a very basic application or supplement and a complex application or supplement.
Under § 601.6(a), the total annual responses are based on FDA estimates that establishments may notify an average of 20 selling agents and distributors of such suspension, and provide FDA of such notification. The number of respondents is based on the estimated annual number of suspensions of a biologic license.
Under §§ 601.12(f)(4) and 601.45, manufacturers of biological products may use either Form FDA 2567 or Form FDA 2253 to submit advertising and promotional labeling. Based on information obtained from FDA's database system, there were an estimated 10,578 submissions of advertising and promotional labeling.
Under §§ 601.28 and 601.70(b), FDA estimates that it takes an applicant approximately 24 hours (8 hours per study × 3 studies) annually to gather, complete, and submit the appropriate information for each postmarketing status report (approximately two to four studies per report) and the accompanied transmittal Form FDA 2252. Included in these 24 hours is the time necessary to prepare and submit two copies of the annual progress report of postmarketing studies to FDA under § 601.70(d).
Under 21 CFR 610.15(d), FDA has received no submissions since the implementation of the final rule in April 2011. Therefore, FDA is estimating one respondent and one annual request to account for a possible submission to CBER or CDER of a request for an exception or alternative for constituent materials under § 610.15(d).
There were a total of 2,664 amendments to an unapproved application or supplement and resubmissions submitted using Form FDA 356h.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 2, 2013.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
In the
The rulemaking included the following information collection under the PRA that was not already included in 21 CFR 312.32 and approved under OMB control number 0910–0014.
Section 312.32(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii) requires reporting to FDA, in an IND safety report, of potential serious risks from clinical trials within 15 calendar days for findings from epidemiological studies, pooled analyses of multiple studies, or other clinical studies that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug.
Section 312.32(c)(1)(iii) specifies the requirements for reporting to FDA in an IND safety report potential serious risks from clinical trials within 15 calendar days for findings from in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk to humans. FDA estimates that approximately 100 sponsors spend a total of approximately 12 hours per report to prepare and submit approximately 600 reports annually.
Section 312.32(c)(1)(iv) requires reporting to FDA in an IND safety report within 15 calendar days of any clinically important increase in the rate of occurrence of serious suspected adverse reactions over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. FDA estimates that approximately 10 sponsors spend a total of approximately 12 hours per report to prepare and submit approximately 10 reports annually.
The rulemaking also included new information collection under the PRA by requiring safety reporting for bioavailability and bioequivalence studies (21 CFR 320.31(d)). FDA estimates that approximately 10 sponsors spend a total of approximately 14 hours per report to prepare and submit approximately 200 reports annually.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 2, 2013.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e) all devices placed into class III by FDA are subject to premarket approval requirements. Premarket approval (PMA) is the process of scientific and regulatory review to ensure the safety and effectiveness of class III devices. An approved PMA is, in effect, a private license granted to the applicant for marketing a particular medical device. A class III device that fails to meet PMA requirements is considered to be adulterated under section 501(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(f)) and cannot be marketed. Premarket approval requirements apply differently to preamendments devices, postamendments devices, and transitional class III devices.
Manufacturers of class III preamendments devices, devices that were in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, are not required to submit a PMA until 30 months after the issuance of a final classification regulation or until 90 days after the publication of a final regulation requiring the submission of a PMA, whichever period is later. FDA may allow more than 90 days after issuance of a final rule for submission of a PMA.
A postamendments device is one that was first distributed commercially on or after May 28, 1976. Postamendments devices determined by FDA to be substantially equivalent to preamendments class III devices are subject to the same requirements as the preamendments devices. FDA determines substantial equivalence after reviewing an applicant's premarket notification submitted in accordance with section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)). Postamendments devices determined by FDA to be not substantially equivalent to either preamendments devices or postamendments devices classified into class I or II are “new” devices and fall automatically into class III. Before such devices can be marketed, they must have an approved premarket approval application or be must reclassified into class I or class II.
The Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105–115) was enacted on November 21, 1997, to implement revisions to the FD&C Act by streamlining the process of bringing safe and effective drugs, medical devices, and other therapies to the U.S. market. FDAMA added section 515(d)(6) to the FD&C Act, which provided that PMA supplements were required for all device changes that affect safety and effectiveness unless such changes are modifications to manufacturing procedures or method of manufacture. That type of manufacturing change will require a 30-day notice, or where FDA finds such notice inadequate, a 135-day PMA supplement.
The implementing regulations, contained in part 814 (21 CFR part 814), further specify the contents of a PMA for a medical device and the criteria FDA will employ in approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA and supplements to PMAs. The regulations' purpose is to establish an efficient and thorough procedure for FDA's review of PMAs and supplements to PMAs for class III medical devices. The regulations facilitate the approval of PMAs and supplements to PMAs for devices that have been shown to be reasonably safe and effective and otherwise meet the statutory criteria for approval. The regulations also ensure the denial of PMAs and supplements to PMAs for devices that have not been
The industry-wide burden estimate for PMAs is based on an FDA actual average fiscal year (FY) annual rate of receipt of PMA submissions data FY 2010 through 2012 and our expectations of submissions to come in the next few years. The burden data for PMAs is based on data provided by applicants by device type and cost element in an earlier study.
Each foreign study should be performed in accordance with the “Declaration of Helsinki” or the laws and regulations of the country in which the study was conducted. If the study was conducted in accordance with the laws of the country, the PMA applicant is required to explain to FDA in detail the differences between the laws of the country and the “Declaration of Helsinki.” Based on the number of PMAs received that contained studies from overseas, FDA estimates that the burden estimate necessary to meet this requirement is 50 hours.
Included in this requirement are the conduct of laboratory and clinical trials as well as the analysis, review, and physical preparation of the PMA application. FDA estimates that 40 applicants, including hospital re-manufacturers of single use devices, will be affected by these requirements which are based on the actual average of FDA receipt of new PMA applications in FY 2010 through 2012. FDA's estimate of the hours per response (668) was derived through FDA's experience and consultation with industry and trade associations. In addition, FDA also based its estimate on the results of an earlier study which accounts for the bulk of the hourly burden for this requirement, which is identified by applicants.
As part of the review process, FDA often requests the PMA applicant to submit additional information regarding the device necessary for FDA to file the PMA or to complete its review and make a final decision. The PMA applicant may, also on their own initiative, submit additional information to FDA during the review process. These amendments contain information ranging from additional test results, re-analysis of the original data set, to revised device labeling. Almost all PMAs received by the Agency have amendments submitted during the review process. FDA estimates that 20,040 burden hours are necessary to satisfy this requirement.
FDA believes that 39,000 burden hours are needed to complete the requirements for the range of PMA supplements (180-day fee-based, 180-day non-fee based, and real-time supplements).
This type of supplements is intended to enhance the safety of the device or the safe use of the device. The number of PMA supplements received that fit this category averaged 80 per year based on the numbers received from FY 2010 through FY 2012. Because of the minimal data required to be included in this type of supplement, FDA estimates that the burden hours necessary to satisfy this requirement are 480 hours.
Under section 515(d) of the FD&C Act, modifications to manufacturing procedures or methods of manufacture that affect the safety and effectiveness of a device subject to an approved PMA do not require submission of a PMA supplement under paragraph (a) of this section and are eligible to be the subject of a 30-day notice. A 30-day notice shall describe in detail the change, summarize the data or information supporting the change, and state that the change has been made in accordance with the requirements of part 820 (21 CFR part 820). The applicant may distribute the device 30 days after the date on which FDA receives the 30-day notice, unless FDA notifies the applicant within 30 days from receipt of the notice, that it is not adequate. FDA estimates the burden to satisfy this requirement is 24,000 hours.
Postapproval requirements concerns approved PMAs that were not reclassified and require a periodic report. After approval, all PMAs require a submission of an annual report. A majority of the submitted PMAs require associated postapproval studies, i.e., followup of patients used in clinical trials to support the PMA or additional preclinical information that is labor-intensive to compile and complete; the remaining PMAs require minimal information. Based on experience and consultation with industry, FDA has estimated that preparation of reports and information required by this section requires 31,050 hours.
Postapproval requirements described in § 814.82(a)(7) require submission of an annual report for each approved PMA. FDA estimates that respondents will average about 10 hours in preparing their reports to meet this requirement. This estimate is based on FDA's experience and consultation with industry. Thus, FDA estimates that the periodic reporting burden required by this section will take 6,000 hours.
FDA will provide special review, which can include expedited processing of a PMA application, for certain devices intended to treat or diagnose life threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. To receive special review, the devices must meet one of the following criteria:
• The device represents a breakthrough technology.
• There are no approved alternatives.
• The use of the device offers significant advantages over existing approved alternatives.
• Availability is in the best interest of the patients.
Applicants planning to submit a PMA may submit a written request to reach agreement with FDA on the key parameters of the investigational plan.
Applicants planning to submit a PMA may submit a written request to FDA for a meeting to determine the type of information (valid scientific evidence) necessary to support the effectiveness of their device.
An original PMA or panel track PMA supplement is taken to an advisory panel of experts unless FDA determines that the information in the application substantially duplicates information which has previously been reviewed by the panel.
FDA must, upon the written request of the applicant, meet with that party
The recordkeeping burden under this section requires the maintenance of records, used to trace patients and the organization and indexing of records into identifiable files to ensure the device's continued safety and effectiveness. These records are required of all applicants who have an approved PMA.
PMAs have been required since 1976, and there are 556 active PMAs that could be subject to these requirements, based on actual FDA data, and approximately 25 new PMAs are approved every year. The aggregate burden for the estimated 600 PMA holders of approved original PMAs for the next few years is estimated to be 10,200 hours.
The applicant determines which records should be maintained during product development to document and/or substantiate the device's safety and effectiveness. Records required by the current good manufacturing practices for medical devices regulation (21 CFR part 820) may be relevant to a PMA review and may be submitted as part of an application. In individual instances, records may be required as conditions of approval to ensure the device's continuing safety and effectiveness.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Notice of Deviation: Non-Competitive Expansion Supplement Funds to the Healthcare Systems Bureau (HSB).
HRSA will be issuing a non-competitive award to the Children's Hospital of Alabama's Regional Poison Control Center. The 11-month award for $126,144 will be made available in the form of a supplement to grant funds to the organization's current grant, H4BHS15500. Effective October 1, 2013, the Regional Poison Control Center will be Alabama's sole poison control center. The center's responsibility to provide poisoning triage and treatment to half the state will be expanded to the entire state. The grant supplement will allow
SECTION 1273 of the Public Health Service Act, (42 U.S.C. 300d—73), as amended by the Poison Center Support, Enhancement, and Awareness Act of 2008.
To meet the legislative mandate, HSB funds the Poison Center Support and Enhancement Grant Program (H4B) CFDA 93.253. Grantees are funded based on population. The Children's Hospital of Alabama's Regional Poison Control Center (H4BHS11550) was funded at $874,061 for a 5-year project period that is due to end August 31, 2014. The funding was based on providing services to 50 percent of Alabama's population. Beginning October 1, 2013, the grantee will be responsible for providing poison center services to the state's entire population.
HSB proposes this deviation to provide a single supplement of funds in the amount of $126,144 to support the grantee's ability to provide poison center services to the state's entire population with the least amount of disruption.
Elisa Gladstone, Director, Division of Poison Control and Healthcare Facilities, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 10–105, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (301) 594–4394;
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92–463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
(1) To articulate the key challenges facing nursing workforce development in meeting the health care needs of the nation; (2) to develop goals and priorities for Council action to address these challenges; and (3) to develop recommendations on the activities, initiatives, and partnerships that are critical to advancing twenty-first century public health education and practice models needed to promote the health of the public. This meeting will form the basis for NACNEP's mandated Twelfth Annual Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Congress. The meeting will include presentations and discussion focused around the purpose and objectives of this meeting. The logistical challenges of scheduling this meeting hindered an earlier publication of this meeting notice.
For additional information regarding NACNEP, please contact Jeanne Brown, Staff Assistant, National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice, Parklawn Building, Room 9–61, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; email at
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel, October 17, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 17, 2013, 06:00 p.m., Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel, 2800 South Potomac Ave., Studio E, Arlington, VA 22202 which was published in the
The October 17, 2013 meeting has been changed to December 19, 2013. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Kidney, Nutrition, Obesity and Diabetes Study Section, October 10, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 11, 2013, 12:30 p.m., Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting will start on December 5, 2013 at 09:30 a.m. and end on December 6, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel, October 7, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to October 7, 2013, 4:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 602, Bethesda, MD 20852 which was published in the
Meeting date has changed from October 7, 2013 to November 12, 2013. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Somatosensory and Chemosensory Systems Study Section, October 1, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 2, 2013, 5:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will start on November 4, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. and end on November 4, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, October 15, 2013, 11:00 a.m. to October 15, 2013, 3:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date and time of the meeting. The meeting is December 2, 2013 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Revision Applications for Basic, Social and Behavioral Research on the Social, Cultural, Biological and Psychological Mechanisms of Stigma, October 20, 2013, 6:00 p.m. to October 21, 2013, 5:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on November 14–15, 2013. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Community-Level Health Promotion Study Section, October 21, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 22, 2013, 05:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting will start on November 25, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. and end on November 25, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Genetic Epidemiology, October 29, 2013, 09:30 a.m. to October 29, 2013, 10:30 a.m., Wingate by Wyndham, 105 State Street, York, PA 17404 which was published in the
The meeting will start on December 6, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. and end on December 6, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Biology of the Visual System Study Section, October 16, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 17, 2013, 05:30 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting will start on December 5, 2013 at 08:00 a.m. and end on December 6, 2013 at 05:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Small Business: Psycho/Neuropathology, Lifespan Development, and Science Education, October 24, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 25, 2013, 06:00 p.m., Renaissance Seattle Hotel, 515 Madison Street, Seattle, WA 98104 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on November 18, 2013 at the Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817. The meeting will start at 8:00 a.m. and end at 2:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Molecular Neuropharmacology and Signaling Study Section, October 7, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 8, 2013, 12:00 p.m., The Dupont Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036 which was published in the
The meeting will start on November 19, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. and end on November 20, 2013 at 12:00 p.m. The location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Fellowships: Biophysical, Physiological, Pharmacological, and Bioengineering Neurosciences, October 10, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 11, 2013, 5:00 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting will start on November 14, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. and end on December 15, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, October 30, 2013, 9:00 a.m. to October 30, 2013, 6:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20817 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the date and time of the meeting. The meeting is November 26, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Basic Mechanisms of Cancer Therapeutics Study Section, October 7, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 8, 2013, 5:00 p.m., Torrance Marriott South Bay, Torrance, CA 90503 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at Ritz Carlton, 1150 22nd St. NW., Washington, DC 20037. The meeting will start on December 3, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. and end on December 4, 2013 at 12:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Molecular Neuroscience of Channels and Receptors, October 18, 2013, 1:00 p.m. to October 18, 2013, 3:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 0892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on November 21, 2013. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee, October 17, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 18, 2013, 12:00 p.m., NIH Building 60 (The Cloister), 1 Cloister Court (Center Drive and Convent Drive), Bethesda, MD 20814146 which was published in the
Meeting date has changed from October 17–18, 2013 to December 9, 2013 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Community-Level Health Promotion: Prevention and Intervention, October 22, 2013, 1:00 p.m. to October 22, 2013, 5:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting will start on November 25, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. and end on November 25, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Virology-B Study Section, October 17, 2013, 8:30 a.m. to October 18, 2013, 5:00 p.m., Sheraton Gunter Hotel, 205 East Houston St., San Antonio, TX 78205 which was published in the
The meeting will start on November 21, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. and end on November 22, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.
The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Cardiovascular and Sleep Epidemiology Study Section, October 2, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 2, 2013, 6:00 p.m., Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting will start on December 16, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. and end on December 16, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Cellular Signaling and Regulatory Systems Study Section, October 21, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 21, 2013, 5:00 p.m., Hotel Nikko San Francisco, 222 Mason Street, San Francisco, CA, 94102 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at the Renaissance Washington DC, Dupont Circle Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037 on December 4, 2013, starting at 8:00 a.m. and ending at 6:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research Committee, October 16, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to October 16, 2013, 5:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 which was published in the
The date has been changed from October 16, 2013 to November 25, 2013. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Intercellular Interactions Study Section, October 3, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 4, 2013, 05:00 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 21045 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on December 5, 2013 from 08:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Brain Injury and Neurovascular Pathologies Study Section, October 10, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 11, 2013, 05:00 p.m., Hotel Nikko San Francisco, 222 Mason Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at Embassy Suites Chevy Chase, 4300 Military Rd. NW., Washington, DC 20015. The meeting will start on November 25, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. and end on November 26, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Hepatobiliary Pathophysiology Study Section, October 15, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 16, 2013, 1:00 p.m., Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting will start on December 5, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. and end on December 9, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Diseases and Pathophysiology of the Visual System Study Section, October 24, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 25, 2013, 05:00 p.m., Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on November 25–26, 2013 at the Embassy Suites Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015. The meeting time remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Macromolecular Structure and Function E Study Section, October 1, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 2, 2013, 05:00 p.m., St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting will start on October 23, 2013 at 09:00 a.m. and end on November 5, 2013 at 05:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, October 1, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 2, 2013, 5:00 p.m., the Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the
This meeting will be held on November 10, 2013 from 1:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. and November 11, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. This meeting is now a Telephone Conference Call. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Macromolecular Structure and Function C Study Section, October 3, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 4, 2013, 10:00 a.m., Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle NW., Washington, DC 20005 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting will start on November 18, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. and end on November 20, 2013 at
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel, October 21, 2013, 9:00 a.m. to October 21, 2013, 5:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
Meeting date has changed from October 21, 2013 to November 6, 2013. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Sensorimotor Integration Study Section, October 01, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to October 02, 2013, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will start on November 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. and end on November 26, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, October 31, 2013, 11:00 a.m. to November 1, 2013, 3:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting. The meeting is November 15–18, 2013. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Pain, October 29, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 30, 2013, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on December 19, 2013. The meeting location and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Gastrointestinal Mucosal Pathobiology Study Section, October 17, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 17, 2013, 06:00 p.m., Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Rd. NW., Washington, DC 20015 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at Hyatt Regency Bethesda, 7400 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814. The meeting will start on December 5, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. and end on December 5, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Development-1 Study Section, October 8, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 8, 2013, 5:00 p.m., Torrance Marriott South Bay, 3635 Fashion Way, Torrance, CA 90503 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on November 18, 2013 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Behavioral Genetics and Epidemiology Study Section, October 8, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 8, 2013, 6:00 p.m., Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 on December 5, 2013, starting at 8:00 a.m. and ending at 6:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Skeletal Biology and Regeneration Overflow, October 9, 2013, 06:30 a.m. to October 9, 2013, 07:30 a.m., Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21231 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on November 19, 2013 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Pathophysiological Basis of Mental Disorders and Addictions Study Section, October 10, 2013, 8:00 a.m. to October 11, 2013, 5:00 p.m., Embassy Suites Washington, DC—Convention Center, 900 10th St. NW., Washington, DC 20001 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on November 18–19, 2013 at the Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037. The meeting time remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of revisions to the following collections of information: 1625–0074, Direct User Fees for Inspection or Examination of U.S. and Foreign Commercial Vessels; 1625–0084, Audit Reports under the International Safety Management Code and 1625–0093, Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk—Letter of Intent and Operations Manual. Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before December 2, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2013–0519] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12–140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet at
Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3532 or fax 202–372–8405, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202–366–9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2013–0519], and must be received by December 2, 2013. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG–2013–0519]; indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via
You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (78 FR 42535, July 16, 2013) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
1.
2.
3.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collection of information: 1625–0025, Carriage of Bulk Solids Requiring Special Handling—46 Code of Federal Regulation Part 148. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 30, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG–2013–0861] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12–140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202–475–3532, or fax 202–372–8405, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202–366–9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collections. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG–2013–0861], and must be received by December 30, 2013. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG–2013–0861], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
1.
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, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 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 December 2, 2013. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
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 import two captive-bred female snow leopards (
The applicant requests renewal of their permit to export and re-export live Mexican or lobo wolves (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for golden parakeet (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance the species' propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
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 scimitar-horned oryx (
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 scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a permit to import 300 biological samples from captive-held White-breasted thrashers (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance the species' propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a permit to export the sport-hunted trophies of two scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a permit to export the sport-hunted trophies of one scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a permit to export the sport-hunted trophy of one scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a permit to import a sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
On November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66476), we published a notice of receipt of this application regarding this applicant's request for a permit to take southern sea otters (
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Decision Approving Lands for Conveyance
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision will be issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to Stuyahok, Limited. The decision approves the surface estate in the lands described below for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601,
Notice of the decision will also be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in the
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until December 2, 2013 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or email, will not be accepted as timely filed.
A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513–7504.
The BLM by phone at 907–271–5960 or by email at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Socorro Field Office, Socorro, New Mexico, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in order to analyze the proposed Lobos carbon dioxide (CO
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the RMP amendment with associated EIS. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until January 29, 2014. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Socorro Field Office at the address above.
Gregory Helseth, Washington Office Project Manager, at 702–515–5173; or
Kinder Morgan CO
This document provides notice that the Socorro Field Office, Socorro, New Mexico, intends to prepare an EIS and a RMP Amendment for the Proposed Lobos CO
The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the planning process. Preliminary issues for the plan amendment area have been identified by BLM personnel; Federal, State, and local agencies; and other stakeholders. The issues include: Loss of habitat and direct disturbance to plant and animal species (including special and sensitive status species); new visual intrusions on the landscape that would impact the scenic and visual quality of the area; impacts to cultural resources, lands that contain places of traditional cultural or religious importance, and historic sites; impacts to National Scenic or Historic Trails; and potential public health and safety impacts. Preliminary planning criteria include: The RMP Amendment and EIS will be completed in compliance with FLPMA, NEPA, and all other relevant Federal laws, executive orders, and management policies of the BLM; where existing planning decisions are still valid, those decisions may remain unchanged and be incorporated into the new RMP amendment; the RMP amendment will recognize valid existing rights; the RMP Amendment and EIS will be completed by coordination with cooperating agencies, government agencies, tribal entities, and all other interested parties.
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
The BLM will use the NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM 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 Native American tribes and pueblos 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. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The minutes and list of attendees for each scoping meeting will be available to the public and open for 30 days after the meeting to any participant who wishes to clarify the views he or she expressed. The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan, and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the 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 an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment 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, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, sociology, and economics.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The mailing/street address for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), West Desert District and Salt Lake Field Offices will be changing from 2370 South 2300 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84119–2022, to 2370 South Decker Lake Blvd., West Valley City, UT 84119–2022.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Replies are provided during normal business hours.
The proposed date will be on or about January 1, 2014.
Jared Posey, Administrative Officer, BLM West Desert District Office, at 801–977–4392.
Departmental Manual 382, Chapter 2.1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The RAC will meet on November 20, 2013, at the BLM Las Cruces District Office Main Conference Room from 7:30 a.m.–4 p.m. The public may send written comments to the RAC at the BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88005.
Rena Gutierrez, BLM Las Cruces District, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM, 88005, 575–525–4338. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8229 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 10-member Las Cruces District RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico. Planned agenda items include a tour to the West Potrillo Wilderness Study Area (WSA) with a briefing on the Restore New Mexico project and management of WSA, opening remarks from the BLM Las Cruces District Manager, updates on ongoing issues and planning efforts, and a presentation on land tenure in the Las Cruces District.
A half-hour public comment period during which the public may address the RAC will begin at 3 p.m. All RAC meetings are open to the public. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Arizona.
The plats of survey of the described lands were officially filed in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona, on dates indicated.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, a portion of Homestead Entry Surveys 57 and 173 and the subdivision of section 25, Township 9 North, Range 10 East, accepted October 22, 2013, and officially filed October 23, 2013, for Group 1110, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat, in three sheets, constituting the map of the legal descriptive boundary of the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, and the survey in Townships 14 and 15 South, Ranges 14 and 15 East, accepted August 7, 2013, and officially filed August 9, 2013, for Group 1111, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the General Services Administration.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and a portion of the subdivision of section 8 and the subdivision of the NE
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
The plat representing the subdivision of section 29 and the survey of the meanders of the present left bank of the Colorado River in section 29, Township 16 South, Range 22 East, accepted October 18, 2013, and officially filed October 18, 2013, for Group 1120, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.
These plats will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004–4427. 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.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Michigan at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Jackson, Lenawee, Livingston, Oakland, Sanilac, and Shiawassee Counties, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan.
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the Wyandotte Nation.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
On an unknown date prior to 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the O'Brien Road site (20JA247) in Jackson County, MI. Workers unearthed human remains during gravel pit operations near Spring Arbor Township. Amateur archeologists excavated the remains of one adult male from the site and donated them to the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA) in 1964. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1930, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals were removed from the Hayworth site (20JA250) in Jackson County, MI. A landowner unearthed the burials while conducting road-grading activities on his property and collected the remains of ten adults, one infant, and one cremated individual. The ten adults and one infant were found buried in flexed positions, with groupings of individuals noted. The landowner donated the human remains to the UMMA on October 31, 1930. The human remains date to the Pre-Contact Period based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Garrison site (20LE99) in Lenawee County, MI. A landowner found the remains of one adult female while working on her property. The landowner collected the human remains and gave them to a local archeologist in 1976, who subsequently donated the remains to the UMMA within the same year. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1958, human remains representing, at minimum, 8 individuals were removed from the Harsh Family site (20LE1) in Lenawee County, MI. A landowner discovered the burials while conducting dirt removal activities on his property. Dan Morse of the UMMA assisted the landowner with the excavation of two burial pits containing the remains of seven adults and one
In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals were removed from the GL–0174 site (20LE38) in Lenawee County, MI. Representatives of the UMMA found and excavated a small borrow pit that contained commingled burials in Macon Township and collected the remains of eight cremated adults, three cremated children, and one non-cremated adult, along with two associated funerary objects. Red ochre was noted as covering the cremations. The human remains date to the Late Archaic Period based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. The 2 associated funerary objects present are 1 stone “cloud blower” pipe fragment and 1 animal bone.
In 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Bernard Pepper site (20LE37) in Lenawee County, MI. A landowner discovered the burial on his property during construction activities and contacted the Michigan State Police. The police collected the remains of one older female and one associated funerary and sent them to the UMMA for identification. Donald F. Huelke, Professor of Anatomy, concluded the individual was Native American. The landowner subsequently donated the collections to the UMMA. The human remains date to sometime between the Late Archaic and Middle Woodland Periods based on the funerary object. No known individuals were identified. The 1 associated funerary object present is a
In 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Hamburg site (20LV1) in Livingston County, MI. The son of a landowner living near Whitewood Lake found the human remains submerged in the water near the shoreline. They were brought to the UMMA and identified as those of an adult female. The landowner donated the collections to the UMMA in July of 1960. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary are present.
In 1997, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Whitmore Lake site in Livingston County, MI. A construction crew engaged in gravel operations near Whitmore Lake discovered the burial and contacted the Whitmore Lake Police Department. The police collected an isolated, fragmented cranium of an adult male and sent the remains to the Washtenaw County Medical Examiner's Office. The Medical Examiner concluded they were Native American and donated them to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1951, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Tessmer site (20OK5) in Oakland County, MI. The burials were discovered on private land east of Pontiac, MI, during commercial gravel operations that destroyed two-thirds of a Pre-Contact Period cemetery. Emerson Greenman of the UMMA excavated the cemetery with the assistance of R. Hatt and A. Spaulding and collected the remains of one adult male, one young adult female, and one associated funerary object. One cranium showed evidence of an ancient plaque removal. Museum records indicate that the UMMA's total holdings from this site entered the museum between the years 1951–1959 as portions of 4 separate accessions. The completion of an artificial lake completely destroyed the site in 1959. The human remains date to the Middle Late Woodland Period (900–1200 A.D.) based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. The 1 associated funerary object present is a ceramic sherd.
In 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, 14 individuals were removed from the Farmington 1 site (20OK2) in Oakland County, MI. Workers for a commercial gravel pit operation discovered the burials and contacted the Oakland County Sherriff's Department. The Sheriff's Deputies contacted James Griffin of the UMMA to investigate the site. Griffin identified and excavated a large ossuary pit, collecting the remains of 10 adults, one sub-adult (under 12 years old), two children, and one neonate, along with 161 associated funerary objects. Ancient modifications were noted on one set of long bones with the ends cut, shaved, and drilled. Additionally, one cranium of an older male, with two ancient drillings, was found encased in blue clay and with blue clay packed into the nose and mouth cavities. Based on historical documentation, archeologists have associated these types of post-mortem holes/drillings with the “feast of the dead” where skeletons were ceremonially re-articulated using such holes. The human remains date to the Middle Late Woodland Period (900–1200 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts and mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. The 161 associated funerary objects present are all ceramic sherds.
In November 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, 8 individuals were removed from the Yerkes site (20OK3) in Oakland County, MI. A landowner collected the remains of seven adults and one sub-adult, along with 40 associated funerary objects, on his property near 10 Mile Road and donated these collections to the UMMA. The human remains date to sometime during the Middle Late Woodland Period to the Late Late Woodland Period (900–1400 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts. The 40 associated funerary objects present are 1 animal mandible fragment, 2 animal teeth, 1 unworked snail shell, 35 ceramic sherds, and 1 worked flint.
In 1927, human remains representing, at minimum, 21 individuals were removed from the Troy Township Gravel Pit site (20OK4) in Oakland County, MI. Workers discovered the burials during gravel pit operations. They contacted Wilbert Hinsdale of the UMMA who excavated the remains of 14 adults, four adolescents, and three children, along with eight associated funerary objects. Within a month after Hinsdale had excavated the burials, a local woman contacted him to report that she had found a bone needle in the vicinity of the site and wanted to donate it to the museum. Hinsdale returned to the site to collect the donation and search the burial site again. He found and collected one small clay cup. The human remains date to the Middle Late Woodland Period (900–1200 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts. No known individuals were identified. The 10 associated funerary objects present are 5 ceramic sherds, 3 faunal bones, 1 animal bone needle, and 1 small clay cup with traces of yellow ochre.
In 1957, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Union Lake site (20OK8) in Oakland County, MI. A contractor found and removed the remains of one adult male, located in a peat deposit, while constructing an artificial lake. He later donated the human remains to the UMMA on May 18, 1960. The human remains date to the Middle Archaic Period (7000 +/− 400 years B.P.) based on pollen analysis from residues inside the cranium. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, 5 individuals were removed from the Hamilton site (20OK338) in Oakland County, MI. A landowner collected the remains of four females and one male from a gravel pit
In September 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Tynride site (20OK55) in Oakland County, MI. Construction workers discovered the burial and contacted the Oakland County Medical Examiner. The Medical Examiner collected remains from one young adult female, along with one associated funerary object, and subsequently donated these collections to the UMMA in November of 1978. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. The 1 associated funerary object present is a animal bone.
In 1940, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from the Schreiber site in (20SL3) Sanilac County, MI. A landowner collected the remains of three adults, along with two associated funerary objects, from a site near the shore of Lake Huron and donated these collections to the UMMA on October 26, 1940. The human remains date to the Early Late Woodland Period (500–1000 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts. No known individuals were identified. The 2 associated funerary objects present are both ceramic sherds.
At some time during or prior to June of 1926, human remains representing, at minimum, 7 individuals were removed from the Warren Clough site (20SE29) in Shiawassee County, MI. The UMMA's Emerson Greenman excavated the remains of five adults, one adolescent, and one child from one of three mounds that comprised the site. Museum records indicate that either looters or amateur archeologists had destroyed the other mounds. The human remains date to the Woodland Period (500–1400 A.D.) based on mortuary practices. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Gilde-Thorpe site (20SE8) in Shiawassee County, MI. Construction workers engaged in gravel operations collected the remains of one adult male and one child, along with two associated funerary objects. Red ochre was noted as being present in the burials. The human remains were donated to the UMMA in 1983. The human remains date to the Archaic Period (3500–500 B.C.) based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. The 2 associated funerary objects present are 1 piece of red ochre and 1 piece of yellow ochre.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession documentation, and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 101 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 220 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the Wyandotte Nation.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Michigan at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Emmet County, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the Wyandotte Nation.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
On an unknown date prior to 1964, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Harbor Springs site (20EM17) in Emmet County, MI. Amateur archeologists or Arthur Jelinek of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA) found the site. The remains of one middle-aged adult male and 1 lot of small conifer wood fragments were collected from the site. The fragments of wood, which appear to have been worked, were stored at the museum in a box labeled “from burial” and were considered to be associated funerary objects. Site records indicate that this site may be the same as, or related to, the Wequetonsing site (20EM6) in Emmet County, MI. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. The 1 associated funerary object present is 1 lot of wood fragments.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession documentation, and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 1 individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 1 lot of objects described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Cynthia Munoz, Center for Archaeological Research, 1 UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249, telephone (210) 458–4394.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio. The human remains were removed from an unknown location in Hawaii.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Kia'i Kānāwai Compliance Enforcement Office of Hawaiian Affairs of Oahu, Hawaii.
Sometime between 1940 and 1960, human remains representing two individuals were removed by an U.S. Air Force airman from an unknown location in Hawaii, likely on the island of Oahu. The airman reportedly found the remains eroding from the sand on the beach and subsequently brought the remains to his home in San Antonio, TX. The human remains consist of two complete skulls, one probably male and one probably female, both adults. After the airman died, his son found the remains and donated them to the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Documentation with the remains states the remains were removed from a “Hawaii hotel site.” No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The geographic context suggests that the remains are of Native Hawaiian affiliation. The teeth of both individuals are worn, suggesting a diet containing abrasives, likely associated with archaeological remains. Given the absence of associated objects, it is not possible to ascribe tribal affiliation.
Officials of the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and Kia'i Kānāwai Compliance Enforcement Office of Hawaiian Affairs of Oahu, Hawaii
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Cynthia Munoz, Center for Archaeological Research, 1 UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249, telephone (210) 458–4394, by December 2, 2013. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to Kia'i Kānāwai Compliance Enforcement Office of Hawaiian Affairs of Oahu, Hawaii may proceed.
The Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio is responsible for notifying the Kia'i Kānāwai Compliance Enforcement Office of Hawaiian Affairs of Oahu, Hawaii that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Capitol Reef National Park has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to Capitol Reef National Park. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Capitol Reef National Park at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Leah McGinnis, Superintendent, Capitol Reef National Park, HC 70 Box 15, Torrey, UT 84775–9602, telephone (435) 425–3791, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of Capitol Reef National Park, Torrey, UT. The human remains were removed from Capitol Reef National Park, Wayne County, UT.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Capitol Reef National Park.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made during a region-wide, multi-park process by Capitol Reef National Park professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
The following tribes were invited to consult but did not participate: Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California); Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California); Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California); Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Lone Pine
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location in Wayne County, UT. The human remains were found in Capitol Reef National Park's collections and so were likely removed from within the boundaries of Capitol Reef National Park. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of Capitol Reef National Park have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California); Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California); Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California); Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California); Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada.
• Other credible lines of evidence, including relevant and authoritative governmental determinations and information gathered during government-to-government consultation from subject matter experts, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; and Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California); Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California); Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California); Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California); Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Leah McGinnis, Superintendent, Capitol Reef National Park, HC 70 Box 15, Torrey, UT 84775–9602, telephone (435) 425–3791, email
Capitol Reef National Park is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and The Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Michigan at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Barry, Branch, Calhoun, Ionia, and Kent Counties, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Grand Traverse Band of
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
In 1958, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from the Middleville site (20BA26) in Barry County, MI. A landowner unearthed human remains while digging a gas line trench on his property. He contacted D.B. Cochran of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA) who collected the remains of one cremated adult, one adolescent, and one child from the fill soil of the trench. Cochran also surveyed the general area, including both sides of the North Branch Thornapple River, for additional burials or artifacts, but found none. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In the 1930s, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Yankee Springs site in Barry County, MI. Workers unearthed the remains of one adult male during gravel pit operations. An employee of the State of Michigan working at the Yankee Springs Recreational Area collected the remains. The skull was eventually donated to the UMMA in the 1960s. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In either 1905 or 1906, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Burch site (20BR1) in Branch County, MI. A landowner found and collected an unknown number of human remains and associated funerary objects while digging on his farm. On an unknown date, he transferred one cranium and three long bones from a young adult female to a Professor of Archaeology at Ohio State University and member of the Ohio Historical Society who subsequently donated these remains to the UMMA in 1955. Additionally, the landowner's nephew transferred one cranium from an adult male, along with an unknown number of the associated funerary objects, to a local collector who subsequently donated the cranium and 148 associated funerary objects to the UMMA in 1970. The human remains likely date to the Late Archaic-Early Woodland Period (2550–300 B.C.) and are likely associated with the Glacial Kame cultural complex as inferred from the presence of sandal-sole gorgets made from
In 1924, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Enos Short's Farm site (20CA102) in Calhoun County, MI. A farmer collected the remains of one young adult female while removing gravel on farmland near Battle Creek, MI. The individual was buried with her head toward the north and facing to the east. The farmer donated the human remains to the UMMA in September of 1924. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1975, human remains representing, at a minimum, 1 adult individual were removed from the Stony Creek site (20IA44) in Ionia County, MI. A local resident collected the human remains, along with an unspecified number of greywacke and quartzite artifacts of unknown type, from a location near Stony Creek. The artifacts were not donated to the UMMA. The artifacts are typical of the Late Archaic Satchell Complex and, along with the presence of copper salt residues on the human remains, help date the human remains to the Archaic Period. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Kent County site in Kent County, MI. Amateur archeologists collected one mandible from a location along the Grand River near the Norton Mounds. It is unclear when the human remains were actually donated to the UMMA, but museum records indicate that the mandible was placed in the teaching collection in 1967. Green staining was noted on the mandible. The human remains date to the Pre-Contact Period based on the presence of numerous documented sites from this period in the same area. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In July 1930, human remains representing, at minimum, 9 individuals were removed from the West Side of Flat River site (20KT43) in Kent County, MI. A local resident collected the remains of eight adults and one child, and donated them to the UMMA on December 29, 1930. The site has multiple components and may have burials that date to both the Pre-Contact and Post-Contact Periods. Historical records indicate that the area where the burials were discovered was known to contain a mound from the Pre-Contact Period as well as a Native American burial ground from the Post-Contact Period likely associated with the Odawa leader Keweyooshcum, who had a village located in the vicinity. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession documentation, and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 18 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 148 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Michigan at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains were removed from Clinton, Gladwin, Gratiot Counties, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
In 1954, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the GL–1997 site in Clinton County, MI. The Clinton County Sheriff's Department collected the remains of one adult male from a location in Essex Township, MI, and sent them to the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA) for identification. The human remains were identified as Native American and
In 1951, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Virgil Olson site (20CL30) in Clinton County, MI. The remains of one adult were found during gravel pit operations on private land, and the Clinton County Sheriff's Department was contacted to investigate. The Sherriff's Department determined the human remains were Native American and donated them to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the 1920s, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Gladwin site in Gladwin County, MI. The remains of an adult female were removed from a mound near Gladwin, MI, and donated to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1924, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the St. Louis site in Gratiot County, MI. The remains of one adult female and one juvenile were found in the UMMA's collections in 1924 with a note that reads “near St. Louis, Gratiot County.” No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1925, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Gramon Mound site (20GR5) in Gratiot County, MI. A local resident reportedly found the remains of eight individuals in a mound located near the Montcalm and Gratiot County line. Only one cranium and one mandible were donated to the UMMA. The remains are from two individuals. The cranium is from a middle-aged adult male and the mandible is from a younger adult male. The cranium has an irregular-cut hole on the left parietal made post-mortem, but the cut hole differs from the type of post-mortem cutting typically associated with the practice of plaque removal. It was reported that all of the crania found in the mound showed evidence of post-mortem drilling. The human remains date to the Late Woodland Period based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession documentation, and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 7 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains objects may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Michigan at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Berrien County, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
In 1958, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual, were removed from the Kimmel site (20BE24) in Berrien County, MI. A landowner was constructing a basement and spreading displaced dirt in his nearby orchard when he discovered that he had unearthed human remains. He contacted amateur archeologists who collected the remains of one adult and an unspecified number of associated funerary objects from out of the displaced dirt. The individual was reportedly buried while lying in an extended position, with a copper gorget and copper beads around the neck, and a copper object lying over the left side of the chest. The human remains and 40 associated funerary objects from the site were donated to the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA). The human remains date to the Late Archaic-to-Early Woodland Periods (900–400 B.C.) based on diagnostic artifacts. No known individuals were identified. The 40 associated funerary objects present are 1 lot of unidentified fibers, 1 lot of animal hide (with copper inclusions adhering to material), 1 lot hide cord (with visible braiding), 33 copper tubular beads, 1 lot copper fragments, 1 copper rectangular gorget (with two perforations and cord present), 1 cane-shaped copper object (with fibers wrapping around one end), and 1 lot of dark fibers (with sand).
On May 27–28, 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Bainbridge Township site in Berrien County, MI. In June of 1961, an amateur archeologist donated the remains of one young adult and one child, along with three associated funerary objects, to the UMMA. The human remains date to the Pre-Contact Period based on diagnostic artifacts. No known individuals were identifies. The 3 associated funerary objects present are 1 flat lithic tool (with perforations) and 2 fragments of red ochre.
On various dates, human remains representing, at minimum, 7 individuals were removed from the Moccasin Bluff site (20BE8) in Berrien County, MI. The Moccasin Bluff site is a multicomponent site for which the UMMA holds 2 separate accessions with collections that date to the Pre-Contact Period. In 1938, an amateur archeologist removed human remains from a refuse pit and a mound at the site. In 1947, he donated the remains of three adults and two juveniles to the UMMA. In 1961, a construction crew partially unearthed human remains while burying utility lines. Arthur Jelinek of the UMMA was called in to conduct a salvage excavation, and he collected remains of two adults from a pit. The human remains date to the Pre-Contact/Woodland Period. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession documentation, and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 43 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); and the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Michigan at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains were removed from St. Clair County, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the Wyandotte Nation.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
On an unknown date prior to 1964, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Port Huron Area site in St. Clair County, MI. The remains of 1 adult were collected from a location near Port Huron, MI, and donated to the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA) in 1964. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On September 28, 1942, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Nook site (20SC108) in St. Clair County, MI. Amateur archeologists excavated the remains of an older adult female from a bundle burial found in a large blowhole
On an unknown date prior to 1924, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Bunce Creek site (20SC05) in St. Clair County, MI. The remains of one adult (possibly female) were part of a larger collection of Native American human remains and cultural items collected by L.P. Rowland and sold to the UMMA in 1924. An amateur archeologist later visited the site in 1936, and dated it to the Early-to-Late Woodland Period. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession documentation, and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 3 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner (hereafter referred to as PCOME) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the PCOME. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the PCOME at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Dr. Bruce Anderson, Forensic Anthropologist, PCOME, Tucson, AZ 85714, telephone (520) 243–8600.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the PCOME professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
In 2009, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a river wash near San Manuel in Pinal County, AZ. The remains were removed from the location by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office and were transferred to Pinal County Medical Examiner's Office for forensic analysis. The Pinal County Medical Examiner, Dr Rebecca Hsu, transferred the remains to the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner for examination by a forensic anthropologist. Dr. Bruce Anderson, Forensic Anthropologist at the PCOME, examined the remains and determined them likely to be prehistoric and of Native American ancestry. The remains were designated with PCOME case number ML 09–01398. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 2010, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a river wash near San Manuel in Pinal County, AZ. The remains were removed from the location by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office and were transferred to Pinal County Medical Examiner's Office for forensic analysis. The Pinal County Medical Examiner, Dr. Rebecca Hsu, transferred the remains to the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner for examination by a forensic anthropologist. Dr. Bruce Anderson, Forensic Anthropologist at the PCOME, examined the remains and determined them likely to be prehistoric and of Native American ancestry. The remains were designated with PCOME case number ML 10–02448. No known individuals were identified. The 387 associated funerary objects are all
The human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice were removed from a location within a 20 mile radius a known the prehistoric ruin, site BB:7:5. This site is a known Native American Hohokam ruin that was deemed such due to the discovery of Gila Polychrome pottery sherds,
Officials of the PCOME have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of at least two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 387 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Bruce Anderson, Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner, 2825 East District, Tucson, AZ 85714, telephone (520)–243–8600, by December 2, 2013. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, may proceed.
The PCOME is responsible for notifying Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Michigan at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Macomb, Monroe, and Wayne Counties, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the Wyandotte Nation.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
On an unknown date prior to 1962, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Verchave #3 site (20MB182) in Macomb County, MI. Farmers found the sun-bleached and very fragmentary remains of one adult on the surface while removing sand and donated the remains to the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA). Archeologist James Fitting later described the burial site as being part of a larger multicomponent site that included a layer of post-contact occupation, including a possible cemetery, over a layer of pre-contact occupation. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1926, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Norton site (20MB5) in Macomb County, MI. Charles Delaney of the UMMA originally reported finding human remains, pottery, and other “relics” during surface surveys near Romeo, MI. In 1937, Emerson Greenman of the UMMA carried out excavations in the same area and found evidence of a village approximately 400 yards away. The human remains date to the Springwells Phase of the Late Woodland Period (1200–1400 A.D.) based on the pottery collected from the nearby village. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On April 25, 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Feick site (20MR281) in Monroe County, MI. A backhoe driver unearthed the human remains during sand removal operations near Exeter Road. The remains were taken to a biology teacher at Monroe High School for identification and later donated to the UMMA by the Monroe County Sheriff's Department. The remains were identified as being Native American and representing one adult, possibly female. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In June of 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from Otter Creek Road site (20MR44) in Monroe County, MI. David Brose of the UMMA collected the human remains representing one adult during a surface survey on private property. The landowner also collected artifacts from the site, but did not donate them to the UMMA. The
On an unknown date prior to 1940, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Near Lake Erie site in Monroe County, MI. The remains of two adults were likely found in 1924 during grading activities associated with railroad tracks running through Bedford Township, MI. Museum records indicate that the human remains, along with associated funerary objects, were collected from the site and subsequently donated to the UMMA on an unknown date during the 1930s. The human remains date to the Late Woodland Period (500–1400 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts. No known individuals were identified. The 12 associated funerary objects present are ceramic sherds.
In June of 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Strasburg Ridge site (20MR128) in Monroe County, MI. David Brose of the UMMA collected the remains of one adult during a surface survey of an open field. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On multiple dates between 1959 and 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, 26 individuals were removed from the Lucy King site (20MR2) in Monroe County, MI. In 1959, Mark Papworth of the UMMA conducted the first excavation of at least 11 individuals. Papworth collected multiple bundle burials from a small, shallow pit, and noted multiple commingled remains of various ages. A publication about the excavation notes multiple Brewerton stemmed points being found in association with the human remains, but the museum has no record of these points being donated to the UMMA. The presence of these points suggest the human remains date to the Late Archaic Period. In 1972, archeologists from Western Michigan University conducted a second excavation of at least three individuals, and subsequently donated those remains to the UMMA in 1979. Most of the remains from this excavation came from the plow zone and, as a result, are very fragmentary and were not found in an archeological context. In 1977, archeologists from the UMMA conducted a third excavation of at least one individual. Again, most of the human remains came from the plow zone and were not found in an archeological context. Finally, in 1980, a backhoe operating near the site inadvertently unearthed human remains. James J. Krakker of the UMMA was contacted to conduct a salvage excavation of at least 11 individuals. Krakker excavated the undisturbed portion of an ossuary and was also able to assign features at the site. Several individuals were noted as being buried in a flexed position, including one area of the site that showed evidence of having been burned. Marginella beads were found buried in association with one individual from the ossuary. Several of the individuals found during Krakker's excavation showed signs of extensive pathologies suggesting they suffered from infectious disease and possibly treponemal disease. A date or time period for the human remains is difficult to establish due to the complexity of the site and lack of an archeological context for most of the collections. The human remains date to, at the earliest, the Late Archaic Period, and, at the latest, the Woodland/Late Woodland Period (500–1600 A.D.). No known individuals were identified. The 1 associated funerary object is 1 lot of Marginella shells.
In June of 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Bay Creek site (20MR31) in Monroe County, MI. David Brose of the UMMA found the remains of at least one adult and one child during a surface survey south of Bay Creek. The human remains date to between the Late Woodland and Post-Contact Periods (500 A.D.–1850 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts collected from other areas of the site. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1940, human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals were removed from the Indian Trails site (20MR4) in Monroe County, MI. Ralph Patton of the UMMA excavated the remains of five adults, five older adults, two juveniles, and one cremated juvenile from a burial pit near Little Swan Creek. The remains of several additional individuals were noted but not collected due to their fragile condition. The site included multiple burials pits wherein various mortuary practices were evident. Patton noted extended burials, bundle burials, cremations, red ochre treatments, and post-mortem modifications such as plaque removals. The human remains date to the Middle Late Woodland Period (1184 A.D. +/−112 years) based on radiocarbon 14 dating. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in 1967, and on an unknown date between 1982–1984, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Morin site (20MR40) in Monroe County, MI. A landowner unearthed human remains while digging to install a pipeline on his property in Erie Township, MI. In 1967, an amateur archeologist conducted multiple excavations at the site and collected human remains and associated funerary objects. The individuals were noted as being buried in an extended position. The UMMA received some of the associated funerary objects from these initial excavations as donations, but the museum received no human remains from this collector. On an unknown date between 1982 and 1984, another amateur archeologist excavated human remains from the site on multiple occasions. Approximately one-quarter of the site was reportedly excavated. The remains of one adolescent were collected along with associated funerary objects. Additional objects were collected from the site, although these objects date to a different time period than the burials. The human remains date to the Late Woodland Period (500–1200 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts and chronometric dating. No known individuals were identified. The 40 associated funerary objects present are 1 biface projectile point (with a corner removed), 1 lot of ceramic sherds (from a single vessel), 19 ceramic sherds (from a single vessel), and 19 bird bones.
On an unknown date prior to 1956, human remains representing, at minimum, 9 individuals were removed from the Foot of First Street site (20WN52) in Wayne County, MI. Workers discovered the burials below First Street while excavating for sewer lines. A local businessman and landowner collected the remains of four adults, two adolescents, and three children, and gave them to an employee of the Detroit Public Library who worked in the Burton Historical Collection. The employee subsequently donated the human remains to the UMMA in 1956. No date or time period for the human remains could be established for the burials, although a note on file from the State Archaeologist's Office of Michigan indicates that the area where the remains were discovered was once the site of a Huron (Wyandot) village in the Post-Contact Period. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On April 13, 1953, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual
On an unknown date in the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Waywash site in Wayne County, MI. A local resident discovered and collected the remains of one adult from the surface of the ground. The human remains were subsequently donated to the UMMA in 1971. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Sometime before March 20, 1935, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Sanderson D–8 site (20WN240) in Wayne County, MI. A local resident found the human remains on the surface of the ground in a road cut. The remains of one adult were collected and donated to the UMMA on March 20, 1935. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1932, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Huron River #3 site (20WN253) in Wayne County, MI. Amateur collectors found the human remains on the surface of the ground while traveling through the area. They collected the human remains and subsequently donated them to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1932, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Holmquist W–19 site (20WN131) in Wayne County, MI. Amateur collectors found the human remains while traveling near the Huron River, representing one adult male and one older adult (possibly female). The remains were subsequently donated to the UMMA. The adult male's cranium had evidence of a post-mortem plaque removal. The human remains date to the Woodland Period (850–1400 A.D.) based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1935, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were removed from the Granville site in Wayne County, MI. A local resident collected the remains of three adults and one child from a location near New Boston, MI, and gave the remains to an amateur collector who subsequently donated them to the UMMA in 1935. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1889, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were removed from the Exposition Grounds site (20WN7) in Wayne County, MI. The human remains were likely found during construction activities at the International Exposition Grounds near historic Ft. Wayne in Detroit, MI. The remains of two adults (one possibly male), one child, and one infant were collected and given to a local politician who subsequently donated the collections to the UMMA on an unknown date. Historical sources indicate that the site contained a Native American burial ground known as “Great Mound.” This mound was destroyed at some point prior to the construction of the exposition grounds. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1933, 1934, and 1935, human remains representing, at minimum, 28 individuals were removed from the Huron River #2 site (20WN132) in Wayne County, MI. In 1933, an amateur collector found human remains and artifacts near the Huron River in Huron Township, MI. He noted finding two complete skeletons at the site, oriented in an east-west direction, and an additional cranium situated in a north-south direction. The collector also reported finding at least 30 petrosal portions that he suggested were from children. The human remains were not collected, but instead reburied due to their fragile condition. Many artifacts made from flint were noted, but were not collected. Other types of associated funerary objects were collected from the site and subsequently donated to the UMMA. In 1934, Wilbert Hinsdale of the UMMA excavated multiple individuals from this site along with associated funerary objects. Hinsdale noted the individuals were buried in a variety of postures. Some individuals were interred in an extended position, lying side-by-side, with the heads of some individuals in line with the feet of other individuals. Three individuals were interred face down with the cranium of one of these individuals facing to the right. Bundle burials were also present at the site, some intruding into other burials. Some burials were also located above other burials, with mixed ash and charcoal between them. Hinsdale also noted that four craniums of individuals lying in an extended position had post-mortem perforations near the vertex. Additionally, multiple craniums were plastered over with clay pushed into the eye orbits, ears, and nasal area. It is unclear if the craniums with clay were the same as those that had perforations. Hinsdale also noted that fish bones were found in the fill dirt, but they are not present in the collection. In 1935, an amateur collector excavated additional individuals and associated funerary objects from this site, and donated them to the UMMA. Finally, 1 lot of DNA extractions was taken from the site in 2006. The human remains date to the Early Late Woodland Period (500–900 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts and mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. The 159 associated funerary objects present are 83 ceramic sherds, 4 ceramic sherds without decoration, 33 stone and ceramic sherds, 7 chert flakes and points, 1 lithic scraper, 2 lithic fragments, 23 clay fragments, 1 ceramic elbow pipe, and 5 animal bones.
In 1932, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Huron River #6 site (20WN242) in Wayne County, MI. Amateur collectors removed the remains of an adolescent from the surface near the Huron River and subsequently donated them to the UMMA in April of 1936. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On April 5, 1981, human remains representing the remains of, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Rennie site (20WN160) in Wayne County, MI. An amateur archeologist collected the remains of one adult from the surface near the Huron River and subsequently donated them to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On September 13, 1985, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from the Arbor Springs site (20WN1008) in Wayne County, MI. A landowner unearthed human remains with a backhoe during construction activities in his yard. He contacted the UMMA, and John O'Shea and Claire McHale conducted a salvage excavation at the
In 1890, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Warner site (20WN1011) in Wayne County, MI. A local resident collected the remains of an older adult female near Highway 12 in Nankin Township, MI, and donated them to the UMMA in 1933. The museum has no further information about this collection. The human remains date to the Early Late Woodland Period (500–1100 A.D.) based on diagnostic objects. No known individuals were identified. The 20 associated funerary objects present are ceramic sherds.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession documentation, and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 114 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 232 objects described in this notice reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the Wyandotte Nation.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Michigan at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Gogebic County, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; and the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan.
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
In 1931, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Lake Gogebic site (20GB1) in Gogebic County, MI. Carl E. Guthe of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology excavated the central portion of a burial mound and collected remains from one adult and one child, along with 110 associated funerary objects. The human remains date to the Early Late Woodland Period (500–1000 A.D.) based on diagnostic objects and mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. The 110 associated funerary objects present are 2 double-pointed copper awls, 1 hammer stone, 2 lithic scrapers, 1 quartz biface, 103 ceramic sherds, and 1 lot of porcupine bones.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession documentation, and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 2 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 110 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Genesee, Tuscola, and Washtenaw Counties, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the Wyandotte Nation.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
On an unknown date prior to 1936, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Otisville site in Genesee County, MI. The remains of one adult were collected during gravel pit operations and donated to the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA). A burial mound reportedly once existed in the area. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On December 13, 1933, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were removed from the Flint site (20GS2) in Genesee County, MI. James Griffin of the UMMA excavated the remains of three adults and one juvenile found during gravel pit operations near the Flint River. The site was noted as having been partially destroyed. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were removed from the Unknown Flint site in Genesee County, MI. The remains of two adults, one sub-adult, and one child were found in the Great Lakes Collection of the UMMA with an associated tag reading “Flint?” which is believed to mean Flint, MI. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were identified among a collection of fossils known as the Hibbard Collection held at the UMMA. In 1965, Claude Hibbard, a Professor of Geology at the University of Michigan, donated to the UMMA a large collection of fossils that he collected over years of geological excavations. The human remains were identified and removed from Hibbard's collection during museum cataloguing activities. It is believed that Hibbard collected these human remains, which represent three adults and one adolescent, during one of his geological excavations. A note with the human remains indicates that they were found somewhere near the Flint River in Genesee County, MI. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On May 24, 1936, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from the James Kirk Farm site (20TU153) in Tuscola County, MI. Emerson Greenman of the UMMA excavated the human remains of one older adult female, one adult, and one infant from a location near Watrousville, MI. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1925, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from the Atkin site (20TU104) in Tuscola County, MI. On December 16, 1925, farmers unearthed the remains of two adults (one of which was possibly male) and one adolescent female while working on their land near the Cass River. The human remains were collected and donated to the UMMA. The human remains date to the Early Late Woodland Period (850–300 B.C.) based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1936, human remains representing, at
Between May 29 and 31, 1936, human remains representing, at minimum, 7 individuals were removed from the Caro site in Tuscola County, MI. M. Titiea collected the remains of two adult females, one adult, one adolescent, one child, one infant, and one neonate as part of an excavation directed by Emerson Greenman of the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Long Sleep site in Tuscola County, MI. The burials were discovered during highway construction activities. A local resident collected the remains of one adult male and one adolescent, and donated them to the UMMA in 1994. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In May 1930, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Pleasant Lake site (20WA285) in Washtenaw County, MI. A Boy Scout troop from Allen Park, MI, collected the remains of one adult male and one child and donated them to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On April 29, 1931, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Fred Ewald Farm site in Washtenaw County, MI. The remains of one adult female and one child were collected during construction activities near Dexter, MI, and donated to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1951, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from the Dewey site in Washtenaw County, MI. The remains of one adult, one juvenile, and one infant were collected during road construction activities near Chelsea, MI, and donated to the UMMA. The individuals were reportedly found buried in a flexed position. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1924, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual was removed from the Barr site (20WA70) in Washtenaw County, MI. A local farmer unearthed the cranium of a young adult female while plowing a field near the Saline River. The remains were reportedly found with a brass kettle that was not donated to the UMMA but that suggests the human remains date to the Post-Contact Period. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In April 1945, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Wiley site (20WA2) in Washtenaw County, MI. The remains of two adults, both possibly female, were collected during gravel pit operations near Ford Lake and donated to the UMMA. The human remains are believed to date to the Late Woodland Period (500–1400 A.D.) based on the burials in an ossuary. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Schaffer Gravel Pit site (20WA52) in Washtenaw County, MI. The remains of a young adult female, buried in a flexed position, were found atop a small ridge on property owned by the Schaffer Lumber Company. Police investigated the site and collected the human remains. The police sent the remains to the University of Michigan's Anatomy Department where they were determined to be Native American. On October 7, 1965, archeologists John Halsey and Richard Wilkinson of the UMMA visited the site and collected more human remains. They were able to identify the burial pit and draw a vertical profile of the pit showing the individual had been buried on an east-west axis. The human remains collected by the police and the archeologists were donated to the UMMA in 1966. The human remains date to the Pre-Contact Period. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Prior to 1933, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the GL–2022 site (20WA1) in Washtenaw County, MI. A landowner discovered the remains of a young adult female on his property located near Dexter, MI, and gave them to Wilbert Hinsdale of the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On April 18, 1946, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Pong site (20WA13) in Washtenaw County, MI. A landowner collected the remains of two adults (one of them female) while digging a basement, and donated them to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1956, human remains representing, at minimum, 8 individuals were removed from the Ford Lake site (20WA80) in Washtenaw County, MI. The burials were discovered during gravel pit operations near Ford Lake. Emerson Greenman of the UMMA collected the commingled human remains of three adult females, two adult males, one older adult male, one adolescent, and one child. One individual was noted as being buried in a flexed position, while another individual was noted as being buried in an extended position. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On August 11, 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Ellis Road site in Washtenaw County, MI. The remains of one child were discovered during gravel pit operations near Ypsilanti, MI. A Michigan State Police Officer brought the collected human remains to the UMMA, where they were identified as Native American. The landowners subsequently donated the collections to the museum. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Between May 24, 1932, and March 5, 1933, human remains representing, at minimum, 22 individuals were removed from the Huron River #1 site (20WA4) in Washtenaw County, MI. The burials were found during gravel pit operations near Ford Lake on land owned by the Ford Motor Company. Amateur archeologists excavated the remains of nine adults (one of whom had been cremated), seven infants/neonates, and six juveniles, along with six associated funerary objects, and donated these collections to the UMMA. The human remains date to the Early Late Woodland Period (500–900 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts and mortuary
On July 29, 1985, human remains representing, at minimum, 5 individuals were removed from the Home Depot site (20WA176) in Washtenaw County, MI. The remains of two adults, two juveniles, and one infant were found during land development activities associated with a retail store. Archeologists from Michigan State University excavated the site between July 29 and August 16, 1985. Three of the individuals were noted as being buried in a tightly flexed position, lying on their left sides, and oriented toward either the east or northeast. There were also two small shells found buried in association with the infant. The collection was donated to the UMMA. The human remains date to the Early Late Woodland period (900–1200 A.D.) based on mortuary treatment and diagnostic artifacts. No known individuals were identified. The 2 associated funerary objects present are two small shells.
In the summer of 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were removed from the Staebler site (20WA40) in Washtenaw County, MI. Archeologists from Schoolcraft Community College and the UMMA jointly excavated a site near Highway M–14, where human remains had been found on the surface of the ground. Some of the remains had been cremated. The excavation focused on the recovery of archeological remains from the surface and plow zone. The archeologists collected the remains of three adults and one sub-adult, along with one associated funerary object. The human remains date to the Late Woodland Period (500–1400 A.D.) based on a projectile point found with the remains. No known individuals were identified. The 1 associated funerary object present is a projectile point.
In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Olson site (20WA111) in Washtenaw County, MI. Experts from the UMMA excavated human remains from a site located near the Huron River. An older adult male was found buried in a semi-flexed, slumped position with 47 associated funerary objects. The human remains date to the Early Late Woodland Period (500–900 A.D.) based on diagnostic objects. No known individuals were identified. The 47 funerary objects present are 1 unworked deer scapula, 3 worked animal bones, 1 unworked turkey bone, 5 slate discs, 2 chert cores, 2 chert flakes, 1 chert triangular biface, 2 chert blades, 1 chert drill, 1 beaver tooth, 2 stone abraders, 1 mussel shell, 23 ceramic sherds, 1 groundstone pendant, and 1 argillite disc.
In July 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Ann Arbor Water Department site (20WA284) in Washtenaw County, MI. City workers engaged in road construction activities unearthed the remains of one adult and contacted the Ann Arbor Police Department. The police collected the human remains and transferred them to the UMMA. After experts at the museum identified the human remains as being Native American, they were donated to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1952, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from the Duke Site (20WA71) in Washtenaw County, MI. Landowners unearthed human remains while digging a basement for their house. They contacted the Washtenaw County Sherriff's Department. Deputies collected the commingled human remains and sent them to Howard Buettner and Emerson Greenman, at the UMMA, for identification. Greenman determined the remains to be Native American and to represent one middle-aged adult female, one cremated adult, and one adolescent. The landowners donated the collections to the UMMA. The human remains date to the Woodland-Late Pre-Contact Period (500–1610 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts from a non-burial area of the overall site. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On October 4, 1994, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Kuclo site (20WA289) in Washtenaw County, MI. A backhoe operator found the remains in displaced dirt during construction activities associated with a housing development. The Michigan State Police and Washtenaw County Medical Examiner were contacted to investigate the site. They subsequently contacted Russell Nelson of the UMMA, who collected the human remains along with 23 associated funerary objects. The remains of one adult female were identified as Native American. The collection was ultimately donated to the UMMA. The human remains date to the Late Woodland Period (900–1400 A.D.) based on diagnostic objects. No known individuals were identified. The 23 associated funerary objects present are 7 deer bone fragments, 13 ceramic sherds, 2 lithic shatter flakes, and 1 retouched lithic shatter flake.
On September 1, 1998, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Brandon Home site (20WA336) in Washtenaw County, MI. The human remains were found during construction activities in a subdivision of Ann Arbor, MI. The remains of a middle-aged female were found inside a stone-lined chamber, with stones stacked and layered to form a roof. The individual was in supine position, with hands folded over the chest and legs drawn upward. Near the left side of the body, 71 associated funerary objects were found. The human remains date to the Early Late Woodland Period (500–1100 A.D.) based on diagnostic objects. No known individuals were identified. The 71 associated funerary objects present are 1 modified animal bone, 1 lot of small animal bones, 3 animal bone fragments, 1 hoe (made from an elk scapula), 1 slate knife, 1 end scraper, 1 quartz flake, 4 retouched flakes, 1 lot of charcoal, 1 shell fragment, and 56 shell fragments (which include aquatic and terrestrial shells).
In 1996, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were removed from the Nichols Home site (20WA317) in Washtenaw County, MI. Landowners unearthed human remains while digging a basement for their house. The Washtenaw County Medical Examiner was contacted to investigate the site, and determined the remains were Native American. The Medical Examiner contacted the UMMA to conduct a salvage excavation. A backhoe had removed some of the remains. These were collected from the backfill dirt. Additional remains were also collected from portions of the landowner's yard and driveway that had been graded. Faunal remains found in association with the human remains are reported as associated funerary objects. The remains collected represent one adult, one adolescent, one infant, and one perinate. The human remains date to the Archaic Period (7500–100 B.C.) based on the presence of red ochre. No known individuals were identified. The 2 associated funerary objects are 2 lots of faunal bones representing the remains of a dog and a woodchuck.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 95 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 152 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; and the Wyandotte Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains were removed from Alpena, Isabella, Grand Traverse, Lake, Leelanau, Montcalm, Montmorency, Newaygo, Roscommon, and Wexford Counties, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
On an unknown date prior to 1875, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Devil River Mound site (20AL1) in Alpena County, MI. A resident of Ossineke, MI, collected a cranial fragment of one adult (possibly female) sometime before he moved to Ann Arbor, MI. After moving, he donated the human remains to the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA). The cranial fragment has evidence of a drilled perforation made post-mortem. The human remains date to the Late Woodland Period (500–1400 A.D.) based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In October 1925, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Fred Wilder site (20IB7) in Isabella County, MI. An amateur archeologist excavated a series of mounds and a row of pits located approximately 200 yards away from the mounds in Lincoln Township, MI. The remains of one adult (possibly female) were removed from one of the mounds and subsequently donated to the UMMA. The individual was buried lying on her right side, fully extended, with her left arm flexed and left hand resting over her face. A ceramic bowl was reportedly removed from this mound as well, but it was not donated to the museum. The human remains date to the Woodland Period (850 B.C.–1400 A.D.) based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Sometime between July and August of 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from the Fife Lake site (20GT25) in Grand Traverse County, MI. F.V. Brunett of the UMMA excavated a mound near Dollar Lake and collected remains from at least three children. He also noted soil disturbance from looters during his excavation. The human remains date to the Early-to-Middle Late Woodland Period (500–1200 A.D.) based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On August 30, 1928, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from the Noud Lake site (20LK5) in Lake County, MI. Wilbert Hinsdale of the UMMA excavated the remains of one older adult male, one adult, and one child from a mound near Noud Lake. The human remains date to the Woodland Period (850 B.C.–1400 A.D.) based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1940, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Round Top site (20LU63) in Leelanau County, MI. A local resident collected the remains of two adults (one an older male) from a mound along the lakeshore near Leland, MI. The human remains date to the Woodland Period (850 B.C.–1400 A.D.) based on mortuary treatment. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Crystal Lake site in Montcalm County, MI. A landowner collected the remains of one adult female from a gravel pit near Crystal Lake and donated the remains to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On April 25, 1927, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were removed from the Lunden site (20MY3) in Montmorency County, MI. A landowner removed the remains of three adults from one of seven mounds located on his property along near West Twin Lake. He donated some of the collected human remains to Wilbert Hinsdale of the UMMA. It is not known whether the landowner collected any objects associated with the burial, but none were donated to the UMMA. The human remains date to the Early Late Woodland Period (600–1100 A.D.) based on mortuary treatment and artifacts found during a subsequent excavation of a separate site. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In September 1957, human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals were removed from the Croton Bluff Mound site (20NE102) in
In the summer of 2004, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Cut River Mounds site (20RO01) in Roscommon County, MI. Meghan Howey of the UMMA excavated a multicomponent site comprised of two mounds near the Cut River and Houghton Lake. The remains of one adult were found in four different excavation trenches made near a mound. The overall site spanned the Middle Woodland to the Late Late Woodland Periods (380–1600 A.D.). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1964, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Houghton Police Department site in Roscommon County, MI. The Houghton Police Department sent the remains of one adult to the UMMA for identification. The museum concluded that the remains were Native American, and the human remains were subsequently donated to the UMMA in 1964. The remains have no provenience and are believed to be from the Houghton Lake area where other Native American burials have been identified. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1924, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Cadillac site in Wexford County, MI. The Wexford County Coroner collected the remains of one middle-aged female from an unspecified mound near Cadillac, MI. He donated them to the UMMA in 1924. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession documentation, and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 30 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Michigan. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Michigan at the address in this notice by December 2, 2013.
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. The human remains were removed from Saginaw County, MI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d).
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.
Additional requests for consultation were sent to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Tribes.”
On an unknown date between 1915 and 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, 5 individuals were removed from the Green Point site (20SA1) in Saginaw County, MI. An amateur archeologist collected the commingled remains of five adults from the surface of the ground and donated them to the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA). One cranium shows evidence of cradle boarding. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the 1930s, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Vogelaar site (20SA330) in Saginaw County, MI. An amateur archeologist collected the remains of an infant from the surface of the ground as part of an archeological survey in a plowed agricultural field. He donated the human remains to the UMMA in 1978. During the 1960s, archaeologists from the UMMA conducted excavations in the area of this site and found evidence of a Native American habitation area, but no human remains were discovered. The infant's remains are believed to be associated with the habitation area. The human remains are believed to date to the Middle-to-Late Woodland Period (300 B.C.–1400 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts collected from the associated habitation area. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date between 1915 and 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Cavanaugh site (20SA19) in Saginaw County, MI. An amateur archeologist collected the remains of one adult from the surface of the ground near Gratiot Road and donated them to the UMMA in 1957. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date between 1915 and 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual, were removed from the Mound Hill site (20SA26) in Saginaw County, MI. An amateur archeologist collected an adult foot phalanx from the surface of the ground. On an unknown date between 1950 and November 13, 1990, these human remains were donated to the UMMA. The human remains date to the Pre-Contact Period (9150 B.C.-1640 A.D.) based on documentation of a mound at the site. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date prior to 1941, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Fisher site (20SA29) in Saginaw County, MI. A local resident collected the remains of one adult from the surface at a location in Bridgeport Township. The human remains were given to an amateur archeologist in 1950, who subsequently donated them to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1913, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Huron Valley Cemetery site (20SA36) in Saginaw County, MI. A local farmer and his sons collected the remains of a middle-aged female from the surface of the ground in one of their agricultural fields somewhere near the Cass River. They gave the human remains to an amateur archeologist who subsequently donated them to the UMMA in 1932. A projectile point was found embedded on the anterior blade of the female's right ilium. The projectile point is still present and will be kept with the human remains, but it is not believed to be an associated funerary object. The human remains date to the Late Woodland Period (500–1400 A.D.) based on the projectile point. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date between 1915 and 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Letterman site (20SA41) in Saginaw County, MI. An amateur archaeologist collected the remains of one adult from the surface of the ground near the Cass River and donated them to the UMMA. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date between 1915 and 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Sand Ridge site (20SA69) in Saginaw County, MI. An amateur archeologist collected the remains of one adult (probably female) from the surface of the ground near the Pere Marquette Railroad and donated them to the UMMA. Grave looters were known to have visited the area frequently. The human remains date to the Pre-Contact Period (9150 B.C.–1400 A.D.) based on diagnostic artifacts that are not in the UMMA's collections, but are known to have come from the site. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the 1920s, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual was removed from the Dead Creek site (20SA34) in Saginaw County, MI. An amateur archeologist collected the remains of
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were removed from Near Saginaw site in Saginaw County, MI. The remains were found among the UMMA's collections in 1993 during NAGPRA compliance activities. The remains of two adults, one adolescent, and one child were determined to be Native American based on cranial morphology. No date or time period could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date in the 1930s, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from the Nason Hill site (20SA121) in Saginaw County, MI. An amateur archeologist collected the human remains, found among a mixture of surface assemblages with no archeological contexts, and donated them to the UMMA in 1978. No date or time period for the human remains could be established. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial morphology, dental traits, accession documentation, and archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 18 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of Michigan, Office of the Vice President for Research, 4080 Fleming Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1340, telephone (734) 647–9085, email
The University of Michigan is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
On September 30, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in the lawsuit entitled
This Decree represents a settlement of claims against the Defendants ConAgra Foods, Inc., and ConAgra Grocery Products, LLC (“Defendants” or “ConAgra”) for violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321, and Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (“SPCC”) and Facility Response Plan (“FRP”) regulations found at 40 CFR Part 112. The Decree requires that the Defendants pay a civil penalty of $475,000. The Decree further requires that ConAgra implement a formal tank integrity testing program in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute's (“API”) formal standard 653. ConAgra will be required to submit a report annually to EPA summarizing the status of the tank testing and identifying which tanks were inspected during the previous calendar year and which will be inspected in the current year. The Decree provides for stipulated penalties in the event the Defendants fail to comply with the Decree's requirements.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $6.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury for the Consent Decree.
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Utah (Central Division) in the lawsuit entitled
The case was brought under Section 1423 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300h–2, against Newfield for failure to demonstrate adequate financial responsibility for its Class II oil-related injection wells located in the Monument Butte Well Field, substantially on the Uintah & Ouray Indian Reservation in the State of Utah. Newfield failed to meet all of the five financial ratio tests required for the use of financial statement for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. This was a violation of Section 1423 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300h–2; the requirements of the Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) program found at 40 CFR 144.52(a)(7); and Section F of Newfield's UIC permits. Newfield obtained alternate financial assurance on September 27, 2010, through a Surety Bond with a Standby Trust Agreement, which remains in place at this time.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $6.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice.
On October 31, 2013, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Requirements for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Training Institute Education Centers Program and Occupational Safety and Health Administration Outreach Training Program,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Submit comments on or before November 30, 2013.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Consistent with Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) section 21 authority, the OSHA created two educational programs—the OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education Centers Program and the OSHA Outreach Training Program. To be a participant in the OTI Education Centers Program or the Outreach Training Program, an individual/organization must provide the OSHA with certain information. The requested information is necessary to evaluate the applicant organization and to implement, oversee, and monitor the OTI Education Centers and Outreach Training Programs, courses, and trainers. The information collection requirements include the following: Application to become an OSHA Training Institute Education Center (OTI Education Center); OTI Education Centers Monthly Summary Report for the OTI Education Centers and the Outreach Training Program Monthly Summary Report; Statement of Compliance with Outreach Training Program Requirements; Outreach Training Program Report Forms (includes Construction, General Industry, Maritime, and Disaster Site);
These information collections are subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2013; however, it should be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. New requirements would only take effect upon OMB approval. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
On October 31, 2013, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Eligibility Data Form: Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and Veterans' Preference,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Submit comments on or before November 30, 2013.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–VETS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Complainants submit Form VETS/USERRA/VP–1010 to the VETS in order to allege violations of either the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act or laws and regulations related to veterans' preference in Federal employment. This ICR has been classified as a revision, because the VETS has proposed minor changes to this form intended to ensure continuity between the paper VETS 1010 form and the electronic version of the form.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the National Council on the Humanities will meet for the following purposes: To advise the Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) with respect to policies, programs and procedures for carrying out her functions; to review applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 951–960, as amended) and make recommendations thereon to the Acting Chairman; and to consider gifts offered to NEH and make recommendations thereon to the Acting Chairman.
The meeting will be held on Thursday and Friday, November 14–15, 2013, each day from 9:00 a.m. until adjourned.
The meeting will be held at the Old Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20506. See
Lisette Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506, or call (202) 606–8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the National Endowment for the Humanities' TDD terminal at (202) 606–8282. Please provide advance notice of any special needs or accommodations, including for a sign language interpreter.
The Committee meetings of the National Council for the Humanities will be held on November 14, 2013, as follows: The policy discussion session (open to the public) will convene at 9:00 a.m. and last until approximately 10:30 a.m., followed by the discussion of specific grant applications and programs before the Council (closed to the public) from 10:30 a.m. until adjourned.
Challenge Grants: Room 726A.
Digital Humanities: Room 402.
Education Programs: Room M–07.
Federal/State Partnership: Room 507.
Preservation and Access: Room 415.
Public Programs: Room 421.
Research Programs: Room 315.
The Plenary Session of the National Council for the Humanities will convene on November 15, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Room M–09. The agenda for the morning session (open to the public) will be as follows:
As identified above, portions of the meeting of the National Council on the Humanities will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4), 552b(c)(6) and 552b(c)(9)(b) of Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The closed sessions will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, and discussion of certain information, the premature disclosure of which could significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated July 19, 1993.
National Science Foundation.
Notice and Request for Comments.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than three years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by December 30, 2013 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Contact Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292–7556; or send email to
The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) Research Infrastructure Improvement Track-1 (RII Track-1) Program advances science and engineering capabilities in EPSCoR jurisdictions for discovery, innovation and overall knowledge-based prosperity. EPSCoR RII Track-1 projects build human, cyber, and physical infrastructure in EPSCoR jurisdictions, stimulating sustainable improvements in their Research & Development (R&D) capacity and competitiveness.
EPSCoR RII Track-1 projects are founded on key research themes that empower knowledge generation, dissemination and application. They are generally inter- (or multi-)disciplinary and involve effective jurisdictional and regional collaborations among academic, government and private sector stakeholders that advance scientific research, promote innovation and provide multiple societal benefits; and they broaden participation in science and engineering by engaging multiple institutions and organizations at all levels of research and education, and people within and among (EPSCoR jurisdictions.
EPSCoR RII Track-1 projects are required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which are used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of an EPSCoR RII Track-1 project, project teams are required to develop a set of performance indicators for building sustainable infrastructure and capacity in terms of a strategic plan for the project; measure performance and revise strategies as appropriate; report on the progress relative to the project's goals and milestones; and describe changes in strategies, if any, for submission annually to NSF. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of project personnel and students; aggregate demographics of participants; sources of financial support and in-kind support; expenditures by operational component; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; workforce development activities; external engagement activities; patents and patent licenses; publications; degrees granted to students involved in project activities; and descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the EPSCoR RII Track-1 project's efforts. Part of this reporting takes the form of several spreadsheets to capture specific information to demonstrate progress towards achieving the goals of the program. Such reporting requirements are included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the awardee institution and NSF.
Each project's annual report addresses the following categories of activities: (1) Research, (2) education, (3) workforce development, (4) partnerships and collaborations, (5) communication and dissemination, (6) sustainability, (7) diversity, (8) management, and (9) evaluation and assessment.
For each of the categories the report is required to describe overall objectives for the year; specific accomplishments, impacts, outputs and outcomes; problems or challenges the project has encountered in making progress towards goals; and anticipated problems in performance during the following year.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O–1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by December 2, 2013. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Comments can also be emailed to
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, telephone: 301–415–6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of permanent cessation of uranium enrichment activities and suspension of staff review.
On April 2, 2013, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) filed an application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the renewal of its Certificate of Compliance (CoC) for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP). The current CoC for PGDP is set to expire on December 31, 2013. The NRC staff found USEC's renewal application acceptable for docketing and published a notice in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0099 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC library at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Osiris Siurano-Perez, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–287–9070; email:
The NRC issued the initial CoC for PGDP on November 26, 1996, authorizing USEC's operation of a uranium enrichment facility in Paducah, Kentucky, using the gaseous
By letter dated April 2, 2013 (GDP 13–0010, ADAMS Accession No. ML13105A010), USEC submitted its renewal application in accordance with 10 CFR part 76. In its application, USEC requested that the NRC renew the CoC for a 5-year period with an expiration date of December 31, 2018.
On May 22, 2013 (78 FR 30342), the NRC published in the
In a letter dated June 3, 2013, in accordance with 10 CFR 76.66(b), USEC notified the NRC of its decision to terminate its uranium enrichment operations at the PGDP. USEC stated that it plans to continue managing its inventory of NRC-regulated material, and conduct clean-up related activities under its existing CoC, before returning the PGDP facilities to DOE in 2014. Once USEC has completed these activities, it will request termination of the CoC.
In accordance with 10 CFR 76.55, if a sufficient application for a CoC is timely filed, the existing CoC does not expire until a final determination on the application is made by the NRC. As stated above, USEC's renewal application was found to be sufficient to begin a technical review, and it was timely because it was filed prior to April 15, 2013, as required by 10 CFR 76.31. Therefore, the existing CoC may remain in force after its December 31, 2013, expiration date, until the NRC makes a final determination on the renewal application. Based on USEC's decision to terminate its uranium enrichment operations at PGDP, the NRC's Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards has suspended its review of USEC's April 2, 2013, renewal application. As a result, the NRC will not meet the 10 CFR 76.43 requirement that final NRC decisions on renewal applications be made within 6 months of receipt, and is therefore publishing this notice in accordance with 10 CFR 76.43. The NRC will establish a date for making its renewal decision if USEC changes the termination plans described in its June 3, 2013, letter.
USEC's activities at the PGDP will continue to be governed by the existing CoC until its termination, and the NRC will continue monitoring USEC's security and control of nuclear material, decontamination, decommissioning, and waste disposal.
Once the NRC receives USEC's request for CoC termination, the NRC will start the decertification process and coordinate with USEC and DOE to ensure that an appropriate transition of regulatory authority from the NRC to the DOE occurs. Upon the CoC's termination, DOE will assume responsibility and regulatory authority of the PGDP facility.
The NRC intends to conduct a public meeting as part of the PGDP decertification process to allow USEC, DOE, relevant stakeholders, and members of the public to ask questions about the NRC process for terminating the CoC at the PGDP. A notice of this meeting will be posted on the NRC's Web site,
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact for the exemption from licensing for disposal of low-activity radioactive waste from the Safety Light Corporation (SLC) site in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, at the US Ecology Idaho (USEI) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C disposal facility near Grand View, Idaho.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0241 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Stephen Lemont, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–5163, email:
The NRC staff is considering a request from the US Ecology, Inc. (US Ecology), dated July 7, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13198A017), for exemption from licensing to receive and dispose of approximately 7,640 cubic meters (270,000 cubic feet) of low-activity radioactive wastes at the USEI RCRA Subtitle C hazardous and low-activity radioactive waste facility located near Grand View, Idaho. The wastes would consist of bulk debris and materials from the demolition of structures on the SLC site in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. This proposed NRC action would exempt the USEI site from Atomic Energy Act and NRC licensing requirements.
The term “low-activity waste” does not have a statutory or regulatory definition, but generally means wastes that contain some residual radioactivity, including naturally occurring
The SLC site (also known as the SLC Superfund Site) was listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) National Priorities List on April 27, 2005, and is presently the subject of a remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The USEPA is the lead agency for the remedial action. Section 121(d)(3) of CERCLA applies in any CERCLA response action involving off-site transfer of any hazardous substance, or pollutant or contaminant (CERCLA wastes). This section of the statute is interpreted in the USEPA's Offsite Rule (OSR) (40 CFR 300.440), which requires that CERCLA wastes may only be placed in a facility operating in compliance with RCRA or other applicable Federal or State requirements. Therefore, the subject waste from the SLC site must be disposed at an appropriate offsite disposal facility pursuant to the OSR.
The request to the NRC by US Ecology was made under the alternate disposal provision contained in 10 CFR 20.2002 and the exemption provision in 10 CFR 30.11. The Regulations in 10 CFR 20.2001 identify the mechanisms by which a licensee may lawfully dispose of its licensed radioactive waste. It contains seven different disposal paths, including 10 CFR 20.2002, a provision for “alternative disposal” authorizations. Section 20.2002 is a general provision that allows for other disposal methods, different from those already defined in the NRC's regulations, provided that radiation doses are maintained as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) and within the dose limits in 10 CFR part 20. In practice, § 20.2002 is most often used for disposal of low-activity waste in hazardous or solid waste landfills that are permitted under RCRA.
In Pennsylvania, where the SLC site is located, is an NRC Agreement State, while Idaho, where the USEI RCRA disposal facility is located, is not an Agreement State. As a RCRA facility, USEI is permitted and regulated by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), not the NRC. Idaho regulations and USEI's RCRA permit provide for the acceptance and disposal of the low-activity waste material with appropriate NRC exemptions and approval. According to the NRC's March 13, 2012, letter to all Agreement States (ADAMS Accession No. ML12065A038), “Clarification of the Authorization for Alternate Disposal of Material Issued under 10 CFR 20.2002 and Exemption Provisions in 10 CFR (FSME–12–025),” there are various approaches that should be taken when both Agreement States and non-Agreement States are involved in the § 20.2002 exemption process. The present action falls under Situation #3 in that letter, which addresses the course of action when an Agreement State licensee requests authorization under the State's § 20.2002-equivalent regulation to dispose of material at an unlicensed facility in a non-Agreement State. According to Situation #3,
. . . both the Agreement State and the NRC would need to become involved. The Agreement State that regulates the license seeking to dispose of the material at an unlicensed facility in another state would need to approve disposal under the Agreement State's 20.2002-equivalent regulation. The unlicensed facility would then need to obtain a license or an exemption from the NRC prior to accepting the material for disposal.
Accordingly, in a letter dated June 11, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13296A534), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection informed the USEPA that it had authorized offsite disposal of the subject material from the SLC site in a controlled environment, such as that provided by a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal facility. Approval of the US Ecology request to the NRC would satisfy the requirements of FSME–12–025 Situation #3, the State of Idaho and USEI's RCRA permit, and allow the material to be transported to USEI for disposal.
Under the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21 and 51.30(a), the NRC staff developed an EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML13296A807) in support of the proposed federal action, which is for the NRC to grant an exemption from licensing to US Ecology for the USEI RCRA Subtitle C hazardous and low-activity radioactive waste facility, located near Grand View, Idaho, to receive and dispose of approximately 7,640 cubic meters (270,000 cubic feet) of low-activity radioactive wastes, consisting of bulk debris and materials from the demolition of buildings on the SLC site in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. If the NRC exemption is granted, the waste could be transported from the SLC site for disposal at the USEI facility.
Radionuclides present in the waste materials originated from the production of luminous materials and other commercial products and are expected to be primarily surface and volumetric contaminants on walls, ceilings, floors, and other equipment. The waste will also include debris and materials associated with or contained within the buildings, such as furniture, ductwork, lighting, wiring, process equipment, metal sheet, and some asbestos-containing material in the form of roofing, floor tile and siding. Specific radionuclides expected in the waste include Actinium-227, Americium-241, Cesium-137, Cobalt-60, Lead-210, Neptunium-237, Nickel-63, Radium-226, Strontium-90, and Tritium. Radionuclide concentrations are not expected to exceed any USEI waste acceptance criteria (WAC), and any material identified that could cause a shipment to exceed the USEI WAC will be segregated and disposed at an appropriately licensed LLRW disposal facility. The remedial action is not expected to generate RCRA hazardous wastes. However, if small quantities of hazardous wastes are generated, they will be segregated and initially separated from the main building debris for classification and radiological assessment. Hazardous waste materials found to contain radiological contaminants will be treated (by micro- and/or macro-encapsulation) and disposed at USEI under the RCRA permit and WAC. If organic compounds that require treatment are present, appropriate methods will be used to treat the organics prior to any stabilization for disposal.
The USEI site comprises an approximately 65-hectare (160-acre) hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility. The facility is permitted under Subtitle C of RCRA and under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to treat and dispose of RCRA and TSCA wastes, as well as a wide range of low-activity radioactive wastes and other wastes. The operating disposal area includes two active landfill disposal cells and four surface impoundment disposal units. The site is located in the semi-arid Owyhee Desert where there is limited precipitation. The site's arid climate, deep groundwater, and favorable soil and geologic conditions serve to promote waste isolation.
The information on environmental impacts presented in the EA is focused on those environmental resource areas for which the NRC staff understands that potential impacts of the proposed
The US Ecology request (ADAMS Accession No. ML13198A017) includes a radiological dose assessment for the transport and disposal of the SLC waste material. According to 10 CFR 20.2002, the analysis must show that the radiological doses arising from the proposed action will be ALARA and within the 10 CFR part 20 dose limits. The dose assessment evaluates worker doses for transporting the material to USEI, doses for the onsite workers at the USEI facility, and landfill post closure doses for members of the general public. The analysis used Microshield and RESRAD Version 6.5, as appropriate, to calculate the doses. The NRC staff reviewed and evaluated this dose assessment and performed independent dose calculations, and found the dose assessment to be acceptable under 10 CFR part 20.
The dose assessment uses a conservative source term and site-specific parameter values, and assessed a range of possible exposure scenarios. Estimated doses to workers associated with both the transport and disposal processes were all below 0.01 millisievert/year (mSv/yr) (1 millirem/year (mrem/yr)). Regardless of the radionuclide concentrations used, the post-closure dose to a member of the public was also below 0.01 mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr). By comparison, the 10 CFR part 20 dose limits, as total effective dose equivalents, are 50 mSv/yr (5000 mrem/yr) to workers (10 CFR 20.1201(a)(1)(i)) and 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr) to individual members of the public (10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1)). Also, based on the results of these analyses, the staff concludes that the proposed disposal action will not significantly add to the annual cumulative dose from all exempted and naturally occurring radioactive material received at the USEI disposal facility.
As a result of the dose assessment and other considerations, the staff concludes that the exemption of the USEI site from NRC licensing requirements will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
The staff considered the no-action alternative as an alternative to the proposed action. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would deny the present US Ecology exemption request and the SLC waste could not be received and disposed at the USEI RCRA disposal facility. However, the staff assumes that the subject SLC waste would still be generated under the USEPA's CERCLA response action and, for this response action to be in compliance with the OSR, the SLC waste would still need to be transported to and disposed at another acceptable offsite facility. This facility could be another appropriately permitted disposal site, such as another RCRA hazardous disposal facility, a municipal landfill, or a licensed LLRW disposal site. Under these circumstances, the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative at the disposal facilities would be similar, although denial of the US Ecology request by the NRC may result in delayed demolition of the structures at the SLC site or delayed offsite shipment of the demolition wastes, potentially resulting in increased exposure of site workers and members of the public to the low-activity materials. Also, disposal of the material at a LLRW disposal facility would be at higher cost than at a RCRA hazardous waste landfill or municipal landfill permitted to accept low-activity radioactive wastes but with little or no commensurate reduction of risk, and disposal in a RCRA hazardous waste or municipal landfill would conserve LLRW disposal capacity for higher activity wastes.
The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the proposed action. The staff has concluded that the proposed action, for the NRC to grant an exemption from licensing for the USEI RCRA Subtitle C hazardous and low-activity radioactive waste facility to receive and dispose of specified low-activity radioactive wastes from the SLC Superfund Site, will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, and that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. The USEI site includes an operating disposal facility where the low-activity SLC waste would be disposed of pursuant to a RCRA permit in an existing waste disposal cell. The protection of workers, members of the public, and the environment are ensured by USEI permit requirements, site and facility design features, and engineering and administrative controls. Further, estimated radiological doses associated with transport and disposal of the waste to workers and members of the public would be below 0.01 mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr), which is orders of magnitude below the 10 CFR part 20 dose limits of 50 mSv/yr (5000 mrem/yr) to workers and 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr) to individual members of the public. Also, the staff concludes that the proposed disposal action will not significantly add to the annual cumulative dose from all exempted and naturally occurring radioactive material received at the USEI disposal facility.
On the basis of the conclusion of the EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 23, 2013, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 23, 2013, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 23, 2013, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order approving the substitution of certain securities pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”).
Ameritas Life Insurance Corp., Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. of New York, The Union Central Life Insurance Company (each, a “Life Insurance Company” and, collectively, the “Life Insurance Companies”), and their respective separate accounts: Ameritas Variable Separate Account VA–2, Ameritas Variable Separate Account V, Ameritas Variable Separate Account VA, Ameritas Variable Separate Account VL (the “Ameritas Life Accounts”); Ameritas Life of NY Separate Account VA, Ameritas Life of NY Separate Account VUL (the “Ameritas Life of NY Accounts”); and the Carillon Life Account (each an “Account” and together with the Life Insurance Companies, the “Applicants”).
The Applicants seek an order under Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act approving the substitution of shares of the VIP Money Market Portfolio, Initial Class (the “Replacement Portfolio”) of the Variable Insurance Products Fund V (“VIPFV”) for shares of the Calvert VP Money Market Portfolio (the “Current Portfolio”) of the Calvert Variable Series, Inc. (“CVSI”) held by the Accounts to support certain variable annuity contracts or variable life insurance contracts (collectively, the “Contracts”) issued by the Life Insurance Companies (the “Substitution”).
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on November 14, 2013, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the requester's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicants: Ameritas Life Insurance Corp., Ameritas Variable Separate Account VA–2, Ameritas Variable Separate Account V, Ameritas Variable Separate Account VA, and Ameritas Variable Separate Account VL, 5900 “O” Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68510; Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. of New York, Ameritas Life of NY Separate Account VA, Ameritas Life of NY Separate Account VUL, 1350 Broadway, Suite 2201, New York, New York 10018; and The Union Central Life Insurance Company and Carillon Life Account, 5900 “O” Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68510.
Michelle Roberts, Senior Counsel, or Joyce M. Pickholz, Branch Chief, Insured Investments Office, Division of Investment Management at (202) 551–6795.
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Life Insurance Companies, on their own behalf and on behalf of their respective separate accounts, propose to substitute shares of the Replacement Portfolio for shares of the Current Portfolio held by the Accounts to fund the Contracts.
2. Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. is the depositor and sponsor of the Ameritas Life Accounts. Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. of New York is the depositor and sponsor of the Ameritas Life of NY Accounts. The Union Central Life Insurance Company is the depositor and sponsor of the Carillon Life Account.
3. Each Account is a “separate account” as defined by Rule 0–1(e) under the 1940 Act, and is registered with the Commission as a unit investment trust. Security interests under the Contracts have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”). The application sets forth the registration statement file numbers for the Contracts and the Separate Accounts.
4. Each Account is divided into subaccounts, each of which invests exclusively in shares of a corresponding investment portfolio (a “Portfolio”) of a series-type management investment company, including CVSI.
5. Pursuant to the Contracts, the Life Insurance Companies reserve the right to substitute shares of one Portfolio for shares of another. The prospectuses for the Contracts also disclose that the Life Insurance Companies reserve this right.
6. CVSI is an open-end management investment company (File No. 811–03591) that currently consists of six investment portfolios, including the Current Portfolio, and issues a separate series of shares in connection with each. CVSI has registered such shares under the 1933 Act (File No. 002–80154).
7. Calvert Investment Management, Inc. (“CIM”) serves as the investment adviser to each CVSI Portfolio. CIM is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of AMHC.
8. The VIPFV is an open-end management investment company (File No. 811–05361) that currently consists of 32 investment portfolios, one of which, the Replacement Portfolio, is the subject of the proposed Substitution. VIPFV issues a separate series of shares in connection with each Portfolio and has registered such shares under the 1933 Act (File No. 033–17704).
9. Fidelity Management & Research Company (“FMR”) serves as the manager of each Portfolio of VIPFV. FMR receives an investment management fee from each Portfolio. Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc. (“FIMM”) and other affiliates of FMR serve as sub-advisers for the Replacement Portfolio. FIMM has the day-to-day responsibility of choosing investments for the Replacement Portfolio. In addition, other affiliates of FMR serve as sub-advisers for the Replacement Portfolio and may provide investment research and advice for the Replacement Portfolio. None of VIPFV, FMR, FIMM, or other affiliates of FMR are affiliated persons (or affiliated persons of affiliated person) of any of the Applicants. Likewise, none of the Applicants are affiliated persons (or affiliated persons of affiliated persons) of VIPFV, FMR, FIMM or other affiliates of FMR.
10. The Applicants state that Replacement Portfolio's and Current Portfolio's respective investment objectives, strategies and risks are substantially the same. A comparison of the investment objectives, strategies and risks of the Replacement Portfolio and the Current Portfolio is included in the application.
11. The following table compares the fees and expenses of the Current Portfolio and the Replacement Portfolio as of the year ended December 31, 2012:
12. The Applicants state that the proposed Substitution is in response to a decision by the Board of Directors for CVSI, at a meeting held on June 5, 2013, to approve the dissolution of the Current Portfolio on or about November 15, 2013 (the “Liquidation Date”). The board's decision to liquidate the Current Portfolio requires the Life Insurance Companies to transfer accumulated Contract value invested in the Current Portfolio to an alternative investment option available under the Contracts on or before the Liquidation Date. Currently, the only money market portfolio investment option offered under the Contracts is the Current Portfolio. Accordingly, the proposed Substitution is necessary in order to provide the Contract owners with continued access to a money market portfolio investment option. Consequently, the Life Insurance Companies have determined to replace the Current Portfolio with the Replacement Portfolio via the Substitution.
13. The Life Insurance Companies submit that the Replacement Portfolio is an appropriate alternative for Contract owners for several reasons. First, its investment objectives, strategies and risks are substantially the same as those of the Current Portfolio. Second, it is substantially larger than the Current Portfolio, has had lower overall expense levels than the Portfolio in recent years, and has had higher yields in recent years than the Current Portfolio. Third, the Contracts and other variable annuity and variable life insurance contracts issued by the Life Insurance Companies currently offer one or more VIPFV portfolios (other than the Replacement Portfolio).
14. The Applicants believe that Contract owners would benefit from the significantly larger size of the Replacement Portfolio and the somewhat higher yields of the Replacement Portfolio, as contrasted
15. The Applicants believe that Contract owners will benefit from the reduction in overall expenses of the Replacement Portfolio as compared to the Current Portfolio. Specifically, the management fee, other expenses, and total operating expenses are less than those of the Current Portfolio. Both Portfolios have no charge for Rule 12b–1 distribution and services fees. The total annual operating expense of the Replacement Portfolio is less than that of the Current Portfolio. Given this decrease, the Applicants believe that the Substitution would benefit Contract owners by reducing the overall level of Portfolio expenses.
1. The Applicants request that the Commission issue an order pursuant to Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act approving the proposed Substitution. Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act requires the depositor of a registered unit investment trust holding securities of a single issuer to obtain Commission approval before substituting the securities held by the trust.
2. Applicants submit that the proposed Substitution is not the type of substitution that Section 26(c) was designed to prevent. Section 26(c) was intended to provide for Commission scrutiny of a proposed Substitution which could, in effect, force shareholders dissatisfied with the substitute security to redeem their shares, thereby possibly incurring a loss of the sales load deducted from initial premium, an additional sales load upon reinvestment of the proceeds of redemption, or both, as well as possibly suffering adverse tax consequences upon redemption. Consequently, the section was designed to forestall the ability of a depositor to present holders of interest in a unit investment trust with situations in which a holder's only choice would be to continue an investment in an unsuitable underlying security, or to elect a costly and, in effect, forced redemption.
3. Applicants submit that the proposed substitution will provide Contract owners with substantially the same investment vehicle and would not raise any of the aforementioned concerns that Congress intended to address when the 1940 Act was amended to include Section 26(c).
4. Applicants represent that redemptions and purchases will occur simultaneously so that contract values will remain fully invested at all times. All redemptions of shares of the Current Portfolio and purchases of shares of the Replacement Portfolio will be effected in accordance with Section 22(c) of the Act and Rule 22c–1 thereunder. The Substitution will take place at relative net asset value as of the effective date of the Substitution (“Effective Date”) with no change in the amount of any Contract owner's contract value or death benefit or in the dollar value of his or her investments in the money market subaccount of the applicable Account.
5. Contract values attributable to investments in the Current Portfolio will be transferred to the Replacement Portfolio without charge (including sales charges or surrender charges) and without counting toward the number of transfers that may be permitted without charge. Contract owners will not incur any additional fees or charges as a result of the Substitution, nor will their rights or the Life Insurance Companies' respective obligations under the Contracts be altered in any way and the Substitution will not change Contract owners' insurance benefits under the Contracts. All expenses incurred in connection with the Substitution, including legal, accounting, transactional, and other fees and expenses, including brokerage commissions, will be paid by the Life Insurance Companies. In addition, the Substitution will not impose any tax liability on Contract owners.
6. The Applicants also represent that the Substitution will not cause the Contract fees and charges currently paid by existing Contract owners to be greater after the Substitution than before the Substitution. The Life Insurance Companies will not exercise any right they may have under the Contracts to impose restrictions on transfers under the Contracts for the period beginning on the date of the Pre-Substitution Notice (defined below) through at least thirty (30) days following the Effective Date.
7. Existing Contract owners will be notified of the proposed Substitution by means of a prospectus or prospectus supplement for each of the Contracts (“Pre-Substitution Notice”) at least thirty (30) days before the Effective Date. New purchasers of the Contracts will be provided the Pre-Substitution Notice, the Contract prospectus, and the prospectus for the Replacement Portfolio in accordance with all applicable legal requirements.
8. The Pre-Substitution Notice will: (i) State that the Applicants filed the application seeking approval of the Substitution; (ii) set forth the anticipated Effective Date; (iii) explain that the Contract values attributable to investments in the Current Portfolio would be attributable to the Replacement Portfolio as of the Effective Date; (iv) state that, from the date of the Pre-Substitution Notice until the Effective Date, Contract Owners are permitted to transfer Contract value out of any Current Portfolio sub-account to any other sub-account(s) offered under the Contract without the transfer being treated as a transfer for purposes of transfer limitations and fees that would otherwise be applicable under the terms of the Contract; (v) advise Contract owners that any contract value remaining in the Current Portfolio sub-account on the Effective Date will be transferred to a sub-account investing in the Replacement Portfolio, and that the Substitution will take place at relative net asset value; (vi) inform Contract owners that for at least thirty (30) days following the Effective Date, the applicable Life Insurance Company will permit Contract owners to make transfers of contract value out of the sub-account investing in the Replacement Portfolio to any other available sub-accounts offered under their Contracts without the transfer being counted as a transfer for purposes of transfer limitations and fees, if any, that would otherwise be applicable under the terms of the Contracts; and (vii) inform Contract owners that, except as described in the market timing limitations section of the relevant prospectus, the applicable Life Insurance Company will not exercise any rights reserved by it under the Contracts to impose additional restrictions on transfers out of the sub-account investing in the Replacement Portfolio for at least thirty (30) days after the Effective Date.
9. All Contract owners will have received a copy of the most recent prospectus for the Replacement Portfolio prior to the Substitution. In addition, within five (5) days following the Substitution, Contract owners affected by the Substitution will be notified in writing that the Substitution was carried out. This notice will restate the relevant information set forth in the Pre-Substitution Notice, and will also explain that the contract values attributable to investments in the Current Portfolio were transferred to the Replacement Portfolio without charge
10. The Applicants represent that the Life Insurance Companies will not receive, for three (3) years after the Effective Date, any direct or indirect benefits from the Replacement Portfolio, its advisor or underwriter (or their affiliates), in connection with assets attributable to the Contracts affected by the Substitution, at a higher rate than the Life Insurance Companies had received from the Current Portfolio, its advisor or underwriter (or their affiliates), including without limitation 12b–1 fees, revenue sharing or other arrangements. The Applicants further represent that the Substitution and the selection of the Replacement Portfolio were not motivated by any financial consideration paid or to be paid to a Life Insurance Company or its affiliates by the Replacement Portfolio, its advisor or underwriter, or their affiliates.
11. Applicants submit that the replacement of the Current Portfolio with the Replacement Portfolio is consistent with the protection of Contract owners and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act and, thus, meets the standards necessary to support an order pursuant to Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act. In addition, the Applicants submit that the proposed Substitution meets the standards that the Commission and its staff have applied to Substitutions that have been approved in the past.
For the reasons and upon the facts set forth above in the application, the Applicants believe that the requested order meets the standards set forth in Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act and should therefore be granted.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 21, 2013, NASDAQ OMX BX Inc. (“Exchange” or “BX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
BX proposes to establish a directed order process that would permit members of BX (“BX Participants”) to direct orders in listed options (“Directed Orders”) to a particular market maker on BX (“Directed Market Maker”).
The calculation of a Directed Market Maker's Directed Allocation would depend on whether the Directed Order is submitted in an options class that is subject to price/time priority or in an options class that is subject to the size pro-rata execution algorithm on BX. Specifically, if an option is subject to price/time priority, a Directed Market Maker who has time priority at a particular price would receive the amount of the Directed Order equal to the Directed Market Maker's quotes/orders with time priority at that price. However, if the Directed Market Maker does not have time priority for a size equal to or greater than 40% of the Directed Allocation, the Directed Market Maker would receive a Directed Allocation of 40% of the Directed Order at a particular price.
If a Directed Order is submitted in an options class that is subject to the size pro-rata execution algorithm, any public customer limit orders resting on the limit order book at the execution price would first be executed against the Directed Order.
If the calculation of the 40% Directed Allocation results in a fractional remainder, BX proposes to round up the Directed Market Maker's Directed Allocation to the next whole number whether the Directed Order is submitted in an options class subject to price/time priority or in an options class that is subject to the size pro-rata execution algorithm.
BX also proposes to reduce the quoting obligations applicable to its Market Makers that are not Directed Market Makers. Currently, BX Market Makers are required to quote during regular market hours on a continuous basis (
The quoting obligations applicable to Directed Market Makers would be higher than those applicable to Market Makers that are not Directed Market Makers. Specifically, Directed Market Makers would be required to quote such options 90% of the trading day (as a percentage of the total number of minutes in such trading day) or such higher percentage as BX announces in advance, applied collectively to all series in all of the option classes in which the Directed Market Maker receives Directed Orders (rather than on an option-by-option basis). Once a Directed Market Maker receives a Directed Order, the heightened quoting obligation is triggered and applies to the options in which the Directed Market Maker receives the Directed Order. The Directed Market Maker would be required to comply with the heightened quoting requirements only upon receiving a Directed Order in a class, and the heightened quoting requirements would be applicable until the end of the calendar month.
Under Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act, the Commission shall approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to such organization.
After careful consideration, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission summarized the comments received and BX's response, and noted several concerns that raise questions as to whether the BX proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, including whether the proposed process for handling Directed Orders would promote just and equitable principles of trade, perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and the national market system, or protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission recognizes that it has previously approved rules of other national securities exchanges that provide for directed order programs.
As outlined above, BX's proposed Directed Order rule would provide, in options classes utilizing the price/time allocation methodology, the Directed Market Maker with priority for the 40% allocation ahead of public customer orders. Specifically, the Directed Market Maker's allocation would go ahead of public customer orders that otherwise had time priority over the Directed Market Maker's quote.
NYSE Euronext commented on this aspect of BX's proposal, noting that, under BX's proposal, a Directed Market Maker that submits a quote after a public customer who has aggressively improved the NBBO would receive a Directed Allocation that the earlier-arriving public customer could potentially have completely filled. According to NYSE Euronext, public customers would not be fully rewarded for providing an aggressive quote and thus the incentives to improve the NBBO would decrease, resulting in fewer displayed public customer orders and fewer public customers willing to improve the NBBO.
In response to NYSE Euronext's comment letter, BX argues that customer priority is not mandated by the Act or the rules and regulations thereunder.
NYSE Euronext also notes the longstanding history of distinguishing public customers from professionals and allowing advantages to public customer orders.
In response, BX states its view that the distinction between public customers and professionals was rooted in floor-based trading models where customers were not charged fees and in pro rata priority models where there were opportunities for professionals to “size out” public customers, therefore there was a particular need for public customer priority.
The directed order rules of other exchanges all provide for public customer priority over directed order market makers at a particular price level, whether the exchange has a pro-rata allocation methodology or a price/time allocation methodology.
The Commission believes that BX's failure to accord protection to public customer orders would result in an execution allocation that is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that the rules of an exchange must designed, among other things, to protect investors.
Unlike other exchanges with directed order programs, BX would not require its Directed Market Makers to be quoting at the NBBO at the time a Directed Order is
NYSE Euronext expressed concern with BX's proposed rule to allow a Market Maker to receive a Directed Allocation when the Market Maker does not have a quote at the NBBO at the time the Directed Order is received by BX. NYSE Euronext stated that in approving rule proposals that guarantee an allocation to a market maker, the Commission has consistently focused on two distinct aspects of the proposals, one of which is that the market maker's quote is equal to the NBBO at the time of receipt of the order.
NYSE Euronext states that BX's proposed rule would be unprecedented and would be detrimental to transparency and price discovery by destroying incentives for market makers to quote aggressively at the NBBO.
NYSE Euronext further argues that, although BX believes its proposed rule will increase depth of market, BX fails to acknowledge that such an increase would be the result of fewer Directed Market Makers quoting at the NBBO.
In response to these concerns, BX acknowledges that its proposal does break new ground, but stresses that to receive an execution of a Directed Order, a Directed Market Maker must be quoting at the NBBO at the time of execution, and that there would never be an allocation to a quote outside the NBBO.
BX also argues that a market maker who chooses to quote at a price other than the inside is providing value and depth at that price when orders trade at
BX disagrees with NYSE Euronext's contention that liquidity would be shifted from the top-of-book to depth-of-book. BX instead contends that market participants and market makers in particular have independent and varied motivations for their pricing decisions and pricing points and that a directed order program would not affect those motivations.
The Commission has considered the arguments raised by both BX and NYSE Euronext. On the one hand, the existing requirement to be quoting at the NBBO in order to receive a directed order may incentivize market makers to quote tighter spreads, and therefore contribute to more efficient markets. On the other hand, BX's proposal to allow Directed Market Makers to receive Directed Orders when they are not quoting at the NBBO at the time of receipt of the Directed Order may, as BX argues, contribute to greater depth in the market, which also could contribute to market efficiency. However, BX has not provided sufficient information in its proposal to overcome the Commission's fundamental concerns about the impact the proposal could have on participants' incentives to quote competitively and the potential impact on overall prices in the market. For example, a directed market maker's incentive to quote in the depth-of-book is likely related to the frequency with which marketable orders execute against not just the NBBO but also the depth-of-book. BX, however, has not provided any analysis regarding the frequency or nature of such marketable orders or any data showing the interaction of such orders with the market makers' orders or quotes. Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that BX has met its burden in demonstrating that this aspect of the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
The rules approved by the Commission governing the directed order programs of other options exchanges require that directed market makers on those exchanges satisfy quoting requirements that are higher than those imposed on market makers not receiving directed orders.
The Commission does not believe that BX has sufficiently demonstrated why requiring Directed Market Makers to be quoting at a heightened level only after receiving a Directed Order would not inappropriately upset the balance between a Directed Market Maker's obligations (including quoting obligations) and the benefits it receives (
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission does not believe that BX has met its burden to demonstrate that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and in particular, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The ISE proposes to amend its network fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's network fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt a network fee for a new 40 Gigabit (Gb) low latency Ethernet connectivity option. The Exchange currently offers three Ethernet connection options, a 1 Gb connection at a cost of $500 per month, a 10 Gb connection at a cost of $4,000 per month, and a 10 Gb low latency connection at a cost of $7,000 per month.
In keeping with changes in technology, the Exchange now proposes to provide an enhanced bandwidth option to enable a more efficient connection to the Exchange. The growth in the size of consolidated and proprietary data feeds has resulted in demand for higher bandwidth. As the number of feeds available and the size of the feeds increases, the bandwidth required for market data feeds steadily rises. Through the use of new, advanced hardware, the proposed new connectivity option will provide increased bandwidth and improved latency, and will thereby satisfy demand for more efficient, lower latency connections to the Exchange's trading system.
The Exchange proposes to charge $12,500 per month for this connection. ISE has expended significant amount of resources in developing this infrastructure and the proposed fees will allow the Exchange to recoup its investment. The Exchange's new network connectivity option will provide Members the option to select the bandwidth that is appropriate for their current needs. This new connectivity option is voluntary and, therefore, the Exchange will retain the existing connectivity options for those Members who choose not to utilize the new network connection.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange's new low latency 40 Gb Ethernet network connection will provide Members the ability to increase data transmission and reduce latency, thereby enhancing their operations. The Exchange believes the proposed fees for this new connection to the Exchange are reasonable because the fees charged will allow the Exchange to cover the hardware, installation, testing and connection costs to maintain and manage the enhanced connection. The proposed fees will allow the Exchange to recoup costs associated with providing the low latency 40 Gb connection while aiding Members in making their network connectivity more efficient, and reducing the potential for data spikes and data gapping issues that result from the transmission of the growing size of the consolidated and proprietary market data feeds. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable in that they are lower than the fees charged by other trading venues for similar connectivity services.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed change is reasonable because the proposed fees directly relate to the level of services provided by the Exchange and, in turn, received by Members connecting to the exchange. In this regard, the fees proposed for 40 Gb connections are higher than, for example, the fees for 10 Gb connections because costs for the initial purchase and ongoing maintenance of the 40 Gb connections are generally higher than those of the lower-bandwidth connections. However, these costs are not anticipated to be four times higher than the existing 10 Gb connection. The Exchange therefore notes that while the proposed bandwidth of the low latency 40 Gb connection is four times greater than the existing low latency 10 Gb connection, the proposed fees for the 40 Gb connection are significantly less than four times the fees for the 10 Gb connection. The Exchange believes that this supports a finding that the proposed pricing is reasonable because the Exchange anticipates realizing efficiencies as customers adopt higher-bandwidth connections, and is in turn reflecting such efficiencies in the pricing for the new connectivity option.
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee for 40 Gb connectivity to the Exchange is equitably allocated in that all Members that voluntarily select this service option will be charged the same amount to maintain and manage the enhanced connection. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed 40 Gb fee for connectivity to the Exchange is not unfairly discriminatory in that all Members will have the option of selecting the 40 Gb connection, and there is no differentiation among Members with regard to the fees charged for this option.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which Members can readily direct their order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule 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.
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”)
CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.2B to establish modified Hybrid Opening System (“HOSS”) opening procedures for all option series that are used to calculate volatility indexes. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
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.
On the expiration/final settlement date for volatility index options and futures, modified Hybrid Opening System (HOSS) opening procedures are used for Hybrid 3.0 options and series that are used to calculate the exercise settlement/final settlement value for expiring volatility index options and futures contracts.
Standard expiration options (
CBOE and CFE, however, trade options and futures on other volatility indexes
In addition to the existing volatility indexes calculated using Hybrid option series, the Exchange has created a new volatility index that measures a 9-day period of implied volatility: The CBOE Short-Term Volatility Index (“VXST” or “VXST index”).
In terms of product launches, the Exchange anticipates that CFE will list VXST futures prior to CBOE listing VXST options. This order of product launches is consistent with the past practice of introducing volatility index futures prior to volatility index options due to the use by many market participants of futures as proxies for forward volatility index levels when pricing options.
The VXST index is calculated using S&P 500 index option series that expire on every Friday, including standard SPX option series (
As shown above, because some VXST constituent S&P 500 index option series are Hybrid series, the modified HOSS opening procedures for Hybrid 3.0 series are not applicable to those S&P 500 index option series.
The main feature of the modified HOSS opening procedures utilized in Hybrid 3.0 classes and series (
(1) The orders are for options series with the expiration month that will be used to calculate the settlement price of the applicable volatility index option or futures contract;
(2) The orders are for options series spanning the full range of strike prices in the appropriate expiration month for options series that will be used to calculate the settlement price of the applicable volatility index option or futures contract, though they will not
(3) The orders are for put options with strikes prices less than the “at-the-money” strike price or for call options with strike prices greater than the “at-the-money” strike price. The orders may also be for put and call options with “at-the-money” strike prices.
Rule 6.2B.01(c)(iii)(B) also gives the Exchange discretion to deem other types of orders to fall within the category of “strategy orders” if the Exchange determines that the applicable facts and circumstances warrant. Under current Rule 6.2B.01(c)(iii), all strategy orders must be submitted by 8:15 a.m. (Chicago time).
As background, the Exchange notes that market participants that actively trade VIX derivatives (
The strategy order cut-off time exists because trades to liquidate hedges can contribute to an order imbalance during the SPX opening on VIX expiration/final settlement dates. For example, traders liquidating hedges may predominately be on one side of the market (
For the same reasons set forth above, the Exchange now seeks to establish a strategy order cut-off time: (1) For all constituent option series used to calculate volatility indexes on the expiration/final settlement dates for volatility index derivatives; and (2) for all constituent SPX option series used to calculate the VXST on every Wednesday.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Interpretation and Policy .08 to Rule 6.2B to set forth the modified HOSS opening procedures for Hybrid classes and series used to calculate volatility indexes.
First, the Exchange proposes to set forth the applicable days for when the modified HOSS opening procedures would apply. (All provisions set forth in Rule 6.2B would remain in effect unless superseded or modified by proposed Rule 6.2B.08.) For 30-day volatility indexes, the modified HOSS opening procedures would be utilized on the days that the exercise settlement value and final settlement value is calculated for options (as determined under Rule 24.9(a)(5)) or (security) futures contracts on volatility indexes measuring a 30-day volatility period.
Second, the Exchange proposes to provide that on applicable days, all orders in Hybrid classes and series used to calculate 30-day and short-term volatility indexes (including public customer, broker-dealer, Exchange Market-Maker, away Market-Maker and Specialist orders), other than spread or contingency orders, would be eligible to be placed on the electronic book for the purpose of permitting those orders to participate in the opening price calculation for the applicable option class or series.
Third, the Exchange proposes to establish criteria for strategy orders, a cut-off time to be established by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and a prohibition against cancelling strategy orders; with the limited exception that would permit strategy order to be cancelled if the order is (i) not executed in the modified HOSS opening procedures and the cancellation is submitted after the procedures have concluded, or (ii) cancelled to correct a legitimate error. These proposed provisions are substantially the same as the existing provisions set forth in Rule 6.2B.01. The specific provisions proposed to be adopted are:
On the days that the modified HOSS opening procedures would be utilized, the following provisions would apply to all volatility index option components:
• All option orders for participation in modified HOSS opening procedures that are related to positions in, or a trading strategy involving, volatility index options or (security) futures, and any change to or cancellation of any such order:
○ must be received prior to the applicable strategy order cut-off time for the affected option series (established by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis), provided that the strategy order cut-off time will be no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and no later than the opening of trading in the option series. All pronouncements regarding changes to the applicable strategy order cut-off time would be announced at least one day prior to implementation.
○ may not be cancelled or changed after the applicable strategy order cut-off
In general, the Exchange would consider option orders to be related to positions in, or a trading strategy involving, volatility index options or (security) futures for purposes of Rule 6.2B.08 if the orders possess the following three characteristics:
• The orders are for option series with the expirations that will be used to calculate the exercise settlement or final settlement value of the applicable volatility index option or (security) futures contract.
• The orders are for options series spanning the full range of strike prices for the appropriate expiration for options series that will be used to calculate the exercise settlement or final settlement value of the applicable volatility index option or (security) futures contract, but not necessarily every available strike price.
• The orders are for put options with strike prices less than the “at-the-money” strike price and for call options with strike prices greater than the “at-the-money” strike price. The orders may also be for put and call options with “at-the-money” strike prices.
Whether option orders are related to positions in, or a trading strategy involving, volatility index options or (security) futures for purposes of this Rule 6.2B.08 would depend upon specific facts and circumstances. Order types other than those provided above may also be deemed by the Exchange to fall within this category of orders if the Exchange determines that to be the case based upon the applicable facts and circumstances.
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to provide that the provisions of Rule 6.2B.08 may be suspended by two Floor Officials in the event of unusual market conditions.
Fifth, the Exchange proposes to provide that all other option orders for participation in the modified HOSS opening procedures, and any change to or cancellation of any such order, would be required to be received prior to the applicable cut-off time in order to participate at the opening price for the applicable option series. The applicable cut-off time for the affected option series would be established by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, provided the cut-off time would be no earlier than 8:25 a.m. and no later than the opening of trading in the option series. All pronouncements regarding changes to the applicable cut-off time would be announced at least one day prior to implementation.
Sixth, the Exchange proposes to provide that any imbalance of contracts to buy over contracts to sell in the applicable option series, or vice versa, as indicated on the electronic book, would be published as soon as practicable up through the opening of trading in the affected series on days that the modified HOSS opening procedures are utilized.
The Exchange notes that there are certain provisions set forth in Rule 6.2B.01 that the Exchange is not proposing to adopt as parallel provision to proposed Rule 6.2B.08. The provisions set forth in Rules 6.2B.01(a), (b) and (c)(ii) pertain to opening requirements for liquidity providers that only apply to Hybrid 3.0 classes and series. For Hybrid classes and series, the applicable opening provisions for liquidity providers are set forth in Rule 6.2B. The key difference is that liquidity providers in Hybrid 3.0 classes and series are required to enter opening quotes whereas no such requirement exists for Hybrid classes and series.
In addition, the Exchange is not proposing to adopt a provision similar to Rule 6.2B.01(c)(v) which provides that the HOSS system automatically generates cancels immediately prior to the opening of the applicable index option series for broker-dealer, Exchange Market-Maker, away Market-Maker, and Specialist orders which remain on the electronic book following the modified HOSS opening procedures. This is another difference between Hybrid 3.0 classes and series and Hybrid classes and series in that a similar automatic cancellation function does not occur for Hybrid classes and series because orders from those participants would be permitted to rest in the electronic book following the modified HOSS opening procedures.
The Exchange is taking this opportunity to make some non-substantive changes to Rule 6.2B.01. First, the Exchange is proposing to delete the sentence that is set forth in from [sic] Rule 6.2B.01(b). This provision provides that (on all days), series will not open if there is not a quote present in that series that complies with the bid/ask different [sic] requirements that the Exchange establishes on a class-by-class basis. This same requirement is set forth earlier in Rule 6.2(e). Therefore, the second sentence to Rule 6.2B.01(b) can be deleted.
Second, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.2B.01(c)(i). On all days, non-customer orders in Hybrid 3.0 classes and series are not permitted to rest in the book after the open. Accordingly, non-customers must submit “opening rotation orders” (“OPG”) in order to participate in the opening.
Third, the Exchange is proposing amend Rule 6.2B.01 to include the correct terminology conventions for options and futures throughout Rule 6.2B.01. The Exchange notes that options expire on an expiration date and settle to an exercise settlement value. Futures settle on a final settlement date and settle to a final settlement value. Where appropriate, the Exchange is adding the correct terminology throughout Rule 6.2B.01.
Fourth, the Exchange is proposing to change the reference to “month” as used in Rule 6.2B.01(c)(i) and (c)(iii)(B)(2) [sic] to “expiration.” The reference to month is used to designate which month's option series will be used to calculate a 30-day volatility index. Because options series that expire more often than monthly will be used to calculate the VXST, the Exchange is proposing to amend these provisions to account for the existence of volatility
Fifth, the Exchange is proposing to add more specific rule citations throughout Rule 6.2B.01. Currently, there are several cross references throughout Rule 6.2B.01 to Rule 6.2B and Rule 6.2B.01. In order to be more clear (because some of the same numbering conventions are used in these provisions and could be confusing), the Exchange is proposing to add specific rule references (instead of just subparagraphs) throughout Rule 6.2B.01.
Sixth, the Exchange is proposing to replace the reference to the “opening bell” to [sic] the “opening of trading in the affected series” in Rule 6.2B.01(vi) [sic]. This change is being proposed to make that provision more specific in its description of when imbalances will be published.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to make a few grammatical changes throughout Rule 6.2B.01.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 24.9(a)(5), which sets forth the method of determining the day that the exercise settlement value will be calculated and of determining the expiration date and last trading day for volatility index options. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add the phrase “Measure a 30-Day Volatility Period.” This change is being proposed to account for the existence of two different volatility index products that overlie different implied volatility measurement periods. As described in footnote 13, when the Exchange makes a filing with the Commission to list VXST options, the Exchange plans to establish a proposed similar rule setting forth similar information for VXST options.
The Exchange currently conducts heightened surveillance on the days when the modified HOSS opening procedures are utilized. Those same heightened surveillance practices will be utilized on every Wednesday and the Exchange represents that these surveillance practices shall be adequate to monitor trading in all constituent option series used to calculate volatility indexes. The Exchange expects to enhance surveillance practices in tandem with any resultant trading volume growth.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The primary purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish a strategy-order cut-off time for option series on the day those option series are used to calculate the exercise settlement/final settlement value for volatility index options and futures. Because those option series are typically used to hedge VIX derivatives, market participant [sic] liquidating their hedges on expiration/final settlement dates may contributed to an order imbalance. The proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest because the strategy order cut-off time provides a time period prior to the open of trading during which market participants may help reduce order imbalances for volatility index options. The Exchange notes that a series will not open if there is an imbalance. By creating a window of opportunity to enter orders that reduce any order imbalances to which strategy orders may have contributed, the Exchange is establishing a procedure that is designate [sic] to facilitate a more stable opening process.
In addition, the Exchange hopes that the establishment of a strategy cut-off time will result in market participants submitting orders that would result in price improvement to the option series used to calculate exercise settlement/final settlement values for volatility index derivatives.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, CBOE believes that the establishment of a strategy-order cut-off time results in all market participants, that hedge volatility index derivative using constituent volatility index options, being treated the same and does not impose any burden on competition.
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 such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (“Managed Fund Shares”): SPDR MFS Systematic Core Equity ETF; SPDR MFS Systematic Growth Equity ETF; and SPDR MFS Systematic Value Equity ETF. 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 list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares: SPDR MFS Systematic Core Equity ETF; SPDR MFS Systematic Growth Equity ETF; and SPDR MFS Systematic Value Equity ETF (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”).
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. In addition, Commentary .06 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the SPDR MFS Systematic Core Equity ETF's investment objective will be to seek capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances,
Under normal circumstances, the Adviser or Sub-Adviser, with respect to the Core Equity Portfolio, will invest at least 80% of such Portfolio's net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities. Equity securities in which the Portfolio may invest include common stocks, preferred stocks, securities convertible into stocks, and real estate investment trusts (“REITs”). REITs pool investors' funds for investment primarily in income producing real estate or real estate loans or interests.
In selecting securities for the Core Equity Portfolio, MFS will utilize a bottom-up approach to buying and selling investments for the Portfolio. Investments are selected based on fundamental and quantitative analysis. MFS uses fundamental analysis of individual issuers and their potential in light of their financial condition, and market, economic, political, and regulatory conditions to identify potential investments. Factors considered may include analysis of an issuer's earnings, cash flows, competitive position, and management ability. MFS then uses quantitative models that systematically evaluate an issuer's valuation, price and earnings momentum, earnings quality, and other factors to select investments. While the Sub-Adviser may invest the Core Equity Portfolio's assets in companies of any size, the Sub-Adviser generally will focus on companies with large market capitalizations. In selecting investments for the Core Equity Portfolio, the Sub-Adviser is not constrained to any particular investment style. The Sub-Adviser may invest the Core Equity Portfolio's assets in the stocks of companies it believes have above average earnings growth potential compared to other companies (growth companies), in the stocks of companies it believes are undervalued compared to their perceived worth (value companies), or in a combination of growth and value companies.
The Adviser or Sub-Adviser may invest in exchange-traded products (“ETPs”).
According to the Registration Statement, the SPDR MFS Systematic Growth Equity ETF's investment objective will be to seek capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the Fund will invest substantially all of its assets in the SSgA MFS Systematic Growth Equity Portfolio (the “Growth Equity Portfolio”), a separate series of the SSgA Master Trust with an identical investment objective as the Fund. As a result, the Fund will invest indirectly through the Growth Equity Portfolio.
Under normal circumstances, the Adviser or Sub-Adviser, with respect to the Growth Equity Portfolio, will invest at least 80% of such Portfolio's net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities. Equity securities in which the Growth Equity Portfolio may invest include common stocks, preferred stocks, securities convertible into stocks, and REITs.
In selecting securities for the Growth Equity Portfolio, MFS will utilize a bottom-up approach to buying and selling investments for the Growth Equity Portfolio. Investments are selected based on fundamental and quantitative analysis. MFS uses fundamental analysis of individual issuers and their potential in light of their financial condition, and market, economic, political, and regulatory conditions to identify potential investments. Factors considered may include analysis of an issuer's earnings, cash flows, competitive position, and management ability. MFS then uses quantitative models that systematically evaluate an issuer's valuation, price and earnings momentum, earnings quality, and other factors to select investments. While the Sub-Adviser may invest the Growth Equity Portfolio's assets in companies of any size, the Sub-Adviser generally will focus on companies with large market capitalizations. In selecting investments for the Growth Equity Portfolio, the Sub-Adviser will invest the Growth Equity Portfolio's assets in the stocks of companies it believes have above average earnings growth potential compared to other companies (growth companies).
The Adviser or Sub-Adviser may invest in ETPs.
According to the Registration Statement, the SPDR MFS Systematic Value Equity ETF's investment objective will be to seek capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the Fund will invest substantially all of its assets in the SSgA MFS Systematic Value Equity Portfolio (the “Value Equity Portfolio”), a separate series of the SSgA Master Trust with an identical investment objective as the Fund. As a result, the Fund will invest indirectly through the Value Equity Portfolio.
Under normal circumstances, the Adviser or Sub-Adviser, with respect to the Value Equity Portfolio, will invest at least 80% of such Portfolio's net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities. Equity securities in which the Value Equity Portfolio may invest include common stocks, preferred stocks, securities convertible into stocks, and REITs.
In selecting securities for the Value Equity Portfolio, MFS will utilize a bottom-up approach to buying and selling investments for the Value Equity Portfolio. Investments are selected based on fundamental and quantitative analysis. MFS uses fundamental analysis of individual issuers and their potential in light of their financial condition, and market, economic, political, and regulatory conditions to identify potential investments. Factors considered may include analysis of an issuer's earnings, cash flows, competitive position, and management ability. MFS then uses quantitative models that systematically evaluate an issuer's valuation, price and earnings momentum, earnings quality, and other factors to select investments. While the Sub-Adviser may invest the Value Equity Portfolio's assets in companies of any size, the Sub-Adviser generally will focus on companies with large market capitalizations. In selecting investments for the Value Equity Portfolio, the Sub-Adviser will invest the Value Equity Portfolio's assets in the stocks of companies it believes are undervalued compared to their perceived worth (value companies).
The Adviser or Sub-Adviser may invest in ETPs.
While, under normal circumstances, the Adviser or Sub-Adviser, with respect to each Portfolio, will invest at least 80% of such Portfolio's net assets in equity securities, as described above, the Adviser or Sub-Adviser may invest up to 20% of a Portfolio's net assets in other securities and financial instruments, as described below.
A Fund may (indirectly through its investments in the respective Portfolio or, in extraordinary circumstances, directly) invest in the following types of investments. The investment practices of each Portfolio will be the same in all material respects to those of its respective Fund.
Each Portfolio may invest in bonds, including corporate bonds. The investment return of corporate bonds reflects interest on the bond and changes in the market value of the bond.
Each Portfolio may invest in collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”). A CLO is a financing company (generally called a Special Purpose Vehicle), created to reapportion the risk and return characteristics of a pool of assets. While the assets underlying CLOs are typically “senior loans”, the assets may also include (i) unsecured loans, (ii) other debt securities that are rated below investment grade, (iii) debt tranches of other CLOs and (iv) equity securities incidental to investments in senior loans.
Each Portfolio may invest up to 10% of a Portfolio's net assets in high yield debt securities.
The Portfolios may purchase U.S.-listed common stocks and U.S.-listed preferred securities of foreign corporations, as well as U.S. registered, dollar-denominated bonds of foreign corporations, governments, agencies and supra-national entities.
Each Portfolio may purchase investments in common stock of foreign corporations in the form of depositary receipts, including American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”) and European
Each Portfolio may invest in sovereign debt. Sovereign debt obligations are issued or guaranteed by foreign governments or their agencies. Sovereign debt may be in the form of conventional securities or other types of debt instruments such as loans or loan participations.
Each Portfolio may invest in U.S. Government obligations. U.S. Government obligations include securities issued or guaranteed as to principal and interest by the U.S. Government, its agencies or instrumentalities.
The Portfolios may invest in variable and floating rate securities. Variable rate securities are instruments issued or guaranteed by entities such as (1) U.S. Government, or an agency or instrumentality thereof, (2) corporations, (3) financial institutions, (4) insurance companies, or (5) trusts that have a rate of interest subject to adjustment at regular intervals but less frequently than annually. A variable rate security provides for the automatic establishment of a new interest rate on set dates. The Portfolios may also purchase floating rate securities. A floating rate security provides for the automatic adjustment of its interest rate whenever a specified interest rate changes. Interest rates on these securities are ordinarily tied to, and are a percentage of, a widely recognized interest rate, such as the yield on 90-day U.S. Treasury bills or the prime rate of a specified bank.
Each Portfolio may invest in Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDO). VRDOs are short-term tax exempt fixed income instruments whose yield is reset on a periodic basis.
The Portfolios may invest in inflation-protected public obligations, commonly known as “TIPS,” of the U.S. Treasury, as well as TIPS of major governments and emerging market countries, excluding the United States. TIPS are a type of security issued by a government that are designed to provide inflation protection to investors. TIPS are income-generating instruments whose interest and principal payments are adjusted for inflation.
The Portfolios may each invest in U.S. agency mortgage pass-through securities. As described in the Registration Statement, the term “U.S. agency mortgage pass-through security” refers to a category of pass-through securities backed by pools of mortgages and issued by one of several U.S. Government-sponsored enterprises: Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”), Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”).
The Portfolios will seek to obtain exposure to U.S. agency mortgage pass-through securities primarily through the use of “to-be-announced” or “TBA transactions.” “TBA” refers to a commonly used mechanism for the forward settlement of U.S. agency mortgage pass-through securities, and not to a separate type of mortgage-backed security. Most transactions in mortgage pass-through securities occur through the use of TBA transactions. TBA transactions generally are conducted in accordance with widely-accepted guidelines which establish commonly observed terms and conditions for execution, settlement and delivery. In a TBA transaction, the buyer and seller decide on general trade parameters, such as agency, settlement date, par amount, and price.
The Portfolios may invest up to 15% of net assets in asset-backed and commercial mortgaged-backed securities. Asset-backed securities are securities backed by installment contracts, credit-card receivables or other assets. Commercial mortgage-backed securities are securities backed by commercial real estate properties. Both asset-backed and commercial mortgage-backed securities represent interests in “pools” of assets in which payments of both interest and principal on the securities are made on a regular basis. The payments are, in effect, “passed through” to the holder of the securities (net of any fees paid to the issuer or guarantor of the securities).
Each Portfolio may invest in restricted securities. Restricted securities are securities that are not registered under the Securities Act, but which can be offered and sold to “qualified institutional buyers” under Rule 144A under the Securities Act.
The Portfolios may conduct foreign currency transactions on a spot (
Each Portfolio may invest a portion of its assets in Build America Bonds.
Each Portfolio may invest in repurchase agreements with commercial banks, brokers or dealers to generate income from its excess cash balances and to invest securities lending cash collateral. A repurchase agreement is an
Each Portfolio may enter into reverse repurchase agreements, which involve the sale of securities with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment and have the characteristics of borrowing. The securities purchased with the funds obtained from the agreement and securities collateralizing the agreement will have maturity dates no later than the repayment date.
Each Portfolio may invest in commercial paper. Commercial paper consists of short-term, promissory notes issued by banks, corporations and other entities to finance short-term credit needs. These securities generally are discounted but sometimes may be interest bearing.
In addition to repurchase agreements, each Portfolio may invest in short-term instruments, including money market instruments, (including money market funds advised by the Adviser), cash and cash equivalents, on an ongoing basis to provide liquidity or for other reasons.
Each Portfolio may invest in the securities of other investment companies, including affiliated funds, money market funds and closed-end funds, subject to applicable limitations under Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act. Each Fund will invest substantially all of its assets in the corresponding Portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, each Portfolio will be classified as “diversified.”
Each Portfolio may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser or Sub-Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance.
Neither the Funds nor the Portfolios will invest in options contracts, futures contracts, or swap agreements.
With the exception of unsponsored ADRs, which will comprise no more than 10% of a Fund's net assets, all equity securities in which the Funds may invest will trade on markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or that have entered into a comprehensive surveillance agreement with the Exchange.
Each Fund's investments will be consistent with its respective investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
According to the Registration Statement, each Fund will calculate net asset value (“NAV”) using the NAV of the respective Portfolio. NAV per Share for each Portfolio will be computed by dividing the value of the net assets of the Portfolio (i.e., the value of its total assets less total liabilities) by the total number of Shares outstanding, rounded to the nearest cent. Expenses and fees, including the management fees, will be accrued daily and taken into account for purposes of determining NAV. The NAV of a Portfolio will be calculated by the Custodian and determined at the close of the regular trading session on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time (“E.T.”)) on each day that such exchange is open, provided that fixed-income assets (and, accordingly, a Portfolio's NAV) may be valued as of the announced closing time for trading in fixed-income instruments on any day that the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) (or applicable exchange or market on which a Portfolio's investments are traded) announces an early closing time. Creation/redemption order cut-off times may also be earlier on such days.
According to the Adviser, each Portfolio's investments will be valued at market value or, in the absence of market value with respect to any investment, at fair value in accordance with valuation procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (“Board”) and in accordance with the 1940 Act. Common stocks and equity
According to the Adviser, fixed income securities, including municipal bonds, mortgage-backed securities, treasuries, corporate bonds, and foreign bonds will generally be valued at bid prices received from independent pricing services as of the announced closing time for trading in fixed-income instruments in the respective market or exchange. In determining the value of a fixed income investment, pricing services determine valuations for normal institutional-size trading units of such securities using valuation models or matrix pricing, which incorporates yield and/or price with respect to bonds that are considered comparable in characteristics such as rating, interest rate and maturity date and quotations from securities dealers to determine current value. Short-term investments that mature in less than 60 days when purchased will be valued at cost adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts.
Any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar are converted into U.S. dollars at the current market rates on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more sources.
If a security's market price is not readily available or does not otherwise accurately reflect the fair value of the security, the security will be valued by another method that the Board believes will better reflect fair value in accordance with the Trust's valuation policies and procedures. The Board has delegated the process of valuing securities for which market quotations are not readily available or do not otherwise accurately reflect the fair value of the security to the Pricing and Investment Committee (the “Committee”).
The pre-established pricing methods and valuation policies and procedures outlined above may change, subject to the review and approval of the Committee and Board, as necessary.
According to the Registration Statement, each Fund will offer and issue Shares only in aggregations of a specified number of Shares (each, a “Creation Unit”). Creation Unit sizes will be 50,000 Shares per Creation Unit. The Creation Unit size for a Fund may change. Each Fund will issue and redeem Shares only in Creation Units at the NAV next determined after receipt of an order on a continuous basis on a “Business Day”. A Business Day with respect to a Fund will be, generally, any day on which the NYSE is open for business. The NAV of a Fund will be determined once each Business Day, normally as of the close of trading on the NYSE (normally, 4:00 p.m. E.T.). An order to purchase or redeem Creation Units will be deemed to be received on the Business Day on which the order is placed provided that the order is placed in proper form prior to the applicable cut-off time (typically required by 2:00 p.m. E.T.).
The consideration for purchase of a Creation Unit of a Fund will generally consist of the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (the “Deposit Securities”) per each Creation Unit and a specified cash payment (the “Cash Component”). However, consideration may consist of the cash value of the Deposit Securities (“Deposit Cash”) and the Cash Component.
Together, the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, and the Cash Component will constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of any Fund. The “Cash Component” is an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable. The Cash Component will serve the function of compensating for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable.
The Custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), will make available on each Business Day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. E.T.), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day) for a Fund.
The Trust reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash (
Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by a Fund through the Transfer Agent and only on a Business Day.
With respect to each Fund, the Custodian, through the NSCC, will make available immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. E.T.) on each Business Day, the list of the names and share quantities of each Fund's portfolio securities that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day (“Fund Securities”).
Redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit typically will be paid in-kind; however, such proceeds may be paid in cash or a combination of in-kind and cash, as determined by the Trust. With respect to in-kind redemptions of a Fund, redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will consist of Fund Securities—as announced by the Custodian on the Business Day of the request for redemption received in proper form plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities (the “Cash Redemption Amount”), less a fixed redemption transaction fee and any applicable additional variable charge. All persons redeeming Shares during a Business Day will be treated in the same manner with
The Trust may, in its discretion, exercise its option to redeem Shares in cash, and the redeeming Shareholders will be required to receive its redemption proceeds in cash, as described in the Registration Statement. The investor will receive a cash payment equal to the NAV of its Shares based on the NAV of Shares of the relevant Fund next determined after the redemption request is received in proper form.
The Funds' Web site (
On a daily basis, the Adviser will disclose for each portfolio security and other financial instrument of the Funds and of the Portfolios the following information on the Funds' Web site: Ticker symbol (if applicable), name of security and financial instrument, number of shares (if applicable) and dollar value of financial instruments held in the portfolio, and percentage weighting of the security and financial instrument in the portfolio. The Web site information will be publicly available at no charge.
In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities required to be delivered in exchange for a Fund's Shares, together with estimated and cash component, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the NYSE via NSCC. The basket represents one Creation Unit of each Fund.
Investors can also obtain the Trust's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Funds' Shareholder Reports, and the Trust's Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR, filed twice a year. The Trust's SAI and Shareholder Reports are available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line and, for the ETPs, will be available from the national securities exchange on which they are listed.
Every fifteen seconds during NYSE Arca Core Trading Session, an indicative optimized portfolio value (“IOPV”) relating to each Fund will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors.
Additional information regarding the Trust and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, distributions and taxes is included in the Registration Statement. All terms relating to the Funds that are referred to, but not defined in, this proposed rule change are defined in the Registration Statement.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Funds.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. E.T. in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, Commentary .03, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity
The Shares of each Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Funds will be in compliance with Rule 10A–3
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
With the exception of unsponsored ADRs, which will comprise no more than 10% of a Fund's net assets, all equity securities that the Fund may invest in will trade on markets that are members of ISG or that have entered into a comprehensive surveillance agreement with the Exchange.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value is disseminated; (5) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Funds are subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m. E.T. each trading day.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Adviser and Sub-Adviser have implemented a “fire wall” with respect to its respective affiliated broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Funds' portfolios. In addition, the Trust's Pricing and Investment Committee has implemented procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the Portfolios and the Funds. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. With the exception of unsponsored ADRs, which will comprise no more than 10% of the Fund's net assets, all equity securities that the Fund may invest in will trade on markets that are members of ISG or that have entered into a comprehensive surveillance agreement with the Exchange. The Portfolios may invest up to 15% of net assets in asset-backed and commercial mortgaged-backed securities, as described above. The Portfolios will invest only in equity securities that trade in markets that are members of the ISG or are parties to a
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Funds and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. The Funds' portfolio holdings will be disclosed on their Web site daily after the close of trading on the Exchange and prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange the following day. Moreover, the IOPV will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Funds will disclose on their Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Funds' calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information will be available via the CTA high-speed line. The Web site for the Funds will include a form of the prospectus for the Funds and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Funds will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Funds may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Funds' holdings, the IOPV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of actively-managed exchange-traded products that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Funds' holdings, the IOPV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
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 purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of actively-managed exchange-traded products that, under normal circumstances, will invest principally in equity securities and that will enhance competition with respect to such products among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
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.
In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 13—Business Credit and Assistance § 123.512, the following interest rate is effective for Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans approved on or after October 18, 2013.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Notice of Intent.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is conducting a study of its energy resources in order to update and replace the integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and the associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that it completed in 2011. The IRP is a comprehensive study of how TVA will meet the demand for electricity in its service territory over the next 20 years. The 2011 IRP is being updated in response to major changes in electrical utility industry trends since 2011. As part of the study, TVA intends to prepare a programmatic Supplemental EIS to assess the impacts associated with the implementation of the updated IRP. TVA will use the EIS process to elicit and prioritize the values and concerns of stakeholders; identify issues, trends, events, and tradeoffs affecting TVA's policies; formulate, evaluate and compare alternative portfolios of energy resource options; provide opportunities for public review and comment; and ensure that TVA's evaluation of alternative energy resource strategies reflects a full range of stakeholder input. Public comment is invited concerning both the scope of the Supplemental EIS and environmental issues that should be addressed as a part of this Supplemental EIS.
Comments on the scope of the EIS must be received on or before November 22, 2013. To facilitate the scoping process, TVA will hold public scoping meetings; see
Written comments should be sent to Charles P. Nicholson, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. Comments also may be submitted on the project Web site at
For general information on the NEPA process, contact Mr. Nicholson at the address above, by email at
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
TVA is an agency and instrumentality of the United States, established by an act of Congress in 1933, to foster the social and economic welfare of the people of the Tennessee Valley region and to promote the proper use and conservation of the region's natural resources. One component of this mission is the generation, transmission, and sale of reliable and affordable electric energy.
TVA operates the nation's largest public power system, producing 4 percent of all the electricity in the nation. TVA provides electricity to most of Tennessee and parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. It serves about 9 million people in this seven-state region through 155 power distributors and 57 directly served large industries and federal facilities. The TVA Act requires the TVA power system to be self-supporting and operated on a nonprofit basis and directs TVA to sell power at rates as low as are feasible.
Dependable net summer capacity on the TVA power system is approximately 36,580 megawatts. TVA generates most of the power it distributes with 3 nuclear plants, 10 coal-fired plants, 9 simple-cycle combustion turbine plants, 5 combined-cycle combustion turbine plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, a pumped-storage facility, a methane-gas cofiring facility, a diesel-fired facility, and several small solar photovoltaic facilities. A portion of delivered power is provided through long-term power purchase agreements. About 41 percent of TVA's recent annual generation is from coal; 38 percent is from nuclear; 12 percent from natural gas; and the remainder is from hydro and other renewable energy resources. TVA transmits electricity from these facilities over 16,000 circuit miles of transmission lines. Like other utility systems, TVA has power interchange agreements with utilities surrounding its region and purchases and sells power on an economy basis almost daily.
In April 2011, TVA completed the
The major components of the implemented 2011 IRP strategy included 3,600 to 5,100 MW of energy efficiency and demand response by 2020; 1,500 to 2,500 MW of cost effective renewable energy additions by 2020; idling of 2,400 to 4,700 MW of coal capacity by 2017; 850 MW of new pumped storage capacity in 2020–2024; 1,150 to 5,900 MW of new nuclear capacity in 2013–2029; and 900 to 9,300 MW of new natural gas capacity in 2012–2029.
Since 2011, several dramatic changes, both industry-wide and TVA-specific, have led TVA to begin development of the new IRP and associated Supplemental EIS ahead of the 5-year cycle identified in the 2011 IRP. Natural gas supplies have become abundant and available at lower cost. Electricity demand growth has been lower than forecast and, for TVA, has decreased since 2011. Additional TVA-specific changes to underlying assumptions used in the 2011 IRP study include: The delay in the startup of the first nuclear capacity addition, Watts Bar Unit 2, from 2013 to 2015; the delay of the startup of the next nuclear addition, Bellefonte Unit 1, beyond the early date of 2018; and the postponement of planning studies for new pumped storage capacity, with eventual startup delayed beyond the 2020 early date.
Based on both internal and external stakeholder discussions, TVA anticipates that the major issues to be addressed in the IRP Supplemental EIS will be the cost and reliability of power, the effects of power production on the environment, including climate change, the effects of climate change on the Valley, the availability and use of renewable power resources, the effectiveness and implementation of demand side management options, including energy efficiency, handling waste and byproducts of TVA's power operations, and the relationship of the economy to all of these activities. Generic resource options will be the primary focus of the Supplemental EIS. TVA also anticipates a more robust evaluation of electrical transmission system additions and upgrades necessary to transmit power from TVA generating facilities and from facilities outside the TVA region.
Because of the programmatic nature of this study, TVA anticipates that the environmental effects which are examined will primarily be those at a regional level with some extending to a national or global level. This would include such potential environmental effects and issues as emissions of greenhouse gases, air quality, water quality and quantity, waste generation and disposal, and ecological and cultural resources. Socioeconomic impacts within the region that may result from alternative energy strategies will also be considered. The more site-specific effects will not be addressed in detail and would be addressed in later tiered assessments of specific implementing activities.
This list of issues is preliminary and is intended to facilitate public comment on the scope of this Supplemental EIS. TVA invites suggestions concerning the list of issues which should be addressed. TVA also invites specific comments on the questions that will begin to be answered by IRP:
• Should the current power generation mix (e.g., coal, nuclear power, natural gas, hydro, renewables) change? If so, how?
• Should renewable power be available and added in the Valley at a significant scale? If so, how?
• How should energy efficiency and demand response be considered in planning for future energy needs and how can TVA directly affect electricity usage by consumers?
• And how will all of this affect reliability and the price we pay for electricity?
TVA anticipates using an analytical approach similar to that of the 2011 IRP/EIS described above. The number of alternative energy resource strategies and scenarios to be evaluated may differ from the 2011 IRP/EIS and will be determined after the completion of scoping. The IRP planning period is 20 years.
Scoping, which is integral to the process for implementing NEPA, provides an early and open process to ensure that (1) issues are identified early and properly studied; (2) issues of little significance do not consume substantial time and effort; (3) the draft EIS is thorough and balanced; and (4) delays caused by an inadequate EIS are avoided.
With the help of the public, TVA will identify the most effective energy resource strategy that will meet TVA's mission and serve the people of the Valley for the next 20 years. To ensure that the full range of issues and a comprehensive portfolio of energy resources are addressed, TVA invites members of the public as well as federal, state, and local agencies and Indian tribes to comment on the scope of the IRP EIS. As part of the EIS process, TVA anticipates asking representatives from key stakeholder groups to participate in a public review group which will meet several times over the course of the study to learn about the issues, discuss tradeoffs associated with different resource options, and assist TVA in developing an optimal energy resource strategy.
Comments on the scope of this Supplemental EIS should be submitted no later than the date given under the
After consideration of the comments received during this scoping period, TVA will develop and distribute a document which will summarize public and agency comments that were received and identify the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the Supplemental EIS and identify the schedule for completing the EIS process. Following analysis of the issues, TVA will prepare a draft EIS for public review and comment. Notice of availability of the draft EIS will be published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property at the Kearney Regional Airport (EAR), Kearney, Nebraska.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of land at the Kearney Regional Airport, Kearney, Nebraska, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
Comments must be received on or before December 2, 2013.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE–610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to: Michael Tye, City Attorney, 1419 Central Avenue, P.O. Box 636, Kearney, NE 68848–0636, (308) 237–3155.
Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE–610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329–2644,
The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release approximately 67.72± acres of airport property at the Kearney Regional Airport (EAR) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On July 1, 2013, the City Attorney at the Kearney Regional Airport requested from the FAA that approximately 67.72± acres of property be released for sale to the City of Kearney for them to transfer to the Veteran's Administration for construction of the Central Nebraska Veteran's Home. On September 29, 2013, the FAA determined that the request to release property at the Kearney Regional Airport (EAR) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the release of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this notice.
The Kearney Regional Airport (EAR) is proposing the release of airport property totaling 67.72 acres, more or less. This land is to be used for construction of a new Central Nebraska Veteran's Home. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the land at the Kearney Regional Airport (EAR) being changed from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from the conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value for the property, which will be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport improvement project for general aviation facilities at the Kearney Regional Airport.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice requesting comment on proposed Order 1050.1F Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures; Re-Opening of Comment Period.
This action re-opens the comment period for the notice of draft Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures that was published on August 14, 2013. Airports Council International—North America (ACI–NA), which represents local, regional and state governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports across the United States, requested that the FAA extend the comment period for 14 days.
The notice of the comment period for the Order was published on August 14, 2013 (78 FR 49596), closed September 30, 2013, and is re-opened until November 8, 2013.
You may send comments identified by Docket No. FAA–2013–0685 using any of the following methods:
Donald Scata, Office of Environment and Energy (AEE–400), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–9890; email
By letter dated September 16, 2013, Airports Council International—North America (ACI–NA), which represents local, regional and state governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports across the United States, requested that the FAA extend the comment period for 14 days. ACI–NA noted that the comment period occurs during an extremely busy time for airports, and stated that the requested extension is necessary for the organization to consider issues raised by the proposed revisions to Order 1050.1E.
In response to ACI–NA's request, the FAA is re-opening the comment period until November 8, 2013. Absent unusual circumstances, the FAA does not anticipate any further extension of the comment period for this rulemaking.
Accordingly, the comment period for this notice is extended to November 8, 2013. All comments received between August 14, 2013 and November 8, 2013 will be considered.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by the Tucson Airport Authority (TAA) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq. (formerly the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 (hereinafter referred to as “Part 150”). On March 20, 2013, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the TAA under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements. On September 9, 2013, the FAA approved the Tucson International Airport noise compatibility program. Most of the recommendations of the program were approved. No program elements relating to new or revised flight procedures for noise abatement were proposed.
Jared Raymond, Airport Planner, FAA Phoenix Airports Field Office, 2800 North 44th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, telephone number (602) 379–3022. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location.
This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for Tucson International Airport, effective September 9, 2013. Under section 104(a) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, as amended (herein after referred to as the “Act”) [recodified as 49 U.S.C. 47504], an airport operator who has previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.
Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and the Act, and is limited to the following determinations:
a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150;
b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.
Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR Part 150, section 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. Where federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Airports Field Office in Phoenix, Arizona.
The TAA submitted to the FAA on November 26, 2013, the Noise Exposure Maps for evaluation. The FAA determined that the Noise Exposure Maps for Tucson International Airport were in compliance with applicable requirements on March 20, 2013. Notice of this determination was published in the
The Tucson International Airport study contains a proposed noise compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions. It was requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a Noise Compatibility Program as described in 49 U.S.C. 47504 (formerly Section 104(b) of the Act). The FAA began its review of the program on March 20,
The Noise Compatibility Program recommended three Noise Abatement Elements, five Land Use Planning Elements and two Program Management Elements. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program was approved, by the Manager of the Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, effective September 9, 2013.
Approval was granted for four Land Use Planning Elements and one Program Management Element. The approved measures include: Working with the City of Tucson to review and if necessary modify the boundaries of the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ) Overlay; work with the City of Tucson to review and if necessary modify the land use regulations within the AEZ Overlay as defined in Section 2.8.5 of the City of Tucson Land Use Code; Work with Pima County to review and if necessary modify the boundaries of the Airport Environs and facilities Overlay Zone (AEFZ); work with Pima County to review and if necessary modify the land use regulations within the AEFZ Overlay as defined in Pima County Code; and periodically review and if necessary, update the Noise Exposure Maps (NEM'S) and the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). Approval as a voluntary measure was given for two Noise Abatement Elements and one Program Management Element. These measures include: Formalizing an agreement with the Arizona Air National Guard (AANG) to limit nighttime/early morning and weekend operations; work with the AANG to develop restrictions on ground operations, including optimal orientation of aircraft during final checks prior to departure to reduce noise impacts, and formalize and expand current public outreach programs. One Noise Abatement Element and one Land Use Planning Element was disapproved for purposes of Part 150, since they did not reduce incompatible land uses or lacked a demonstrated noise benefit to noncompatible land uses exposed to noise levels in the yearly day/night average sound level (DNL) 65 noise contours. These measures included: Study implementing an Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) procedure for one or more runway ends and to investigate opportunities to design Airport development in a manner that both reduces interior noise levels of the development and that acts as a barrier to shield neighboring communities from aircraft noise.
The FAA determinations are set forth in detail in the Record of Approval signed by the Manager of the Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, on September 9, 2013. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative offices of the Tucson International Airport. The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation (USDOT).
Notice of Intent.
FHWA, as lead agency, is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the proposed project to provide a modern rail crossing at the location of the existing Portageville Bridge (also known as the “Portage High Bridge”) over the Genesee River in Wyoming and Livingston Counties, New York.
Raymond Hessinger, New York State Department of Transportation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12232, Telephone: (518) 457–8075; or Jonathan McDade, New York Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building, 7th Floor, Room 719, Clinton Avenue and North Pearl Street, Albany, New York 12207, Telephone: (518) 431–4127.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and Norfolk Southern Railway Company, will prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on a proposal to construct a modern rail crossing of the Genesee River between Wyoming and Livingston Counties in New York.
The purpose of the Project is to address the existing deficiencies at Norfolk Southern's Portageville Bridge (also known as the “Portage High Bridge”) by providing a modern rail crossing of the Genesee River that is capable of carrying current industry standard freight rail loads, to the greatest degree possible meeting FRA Class 4 speeds, while reducing ongoing maintenance efforts and costs. The Project is needed in order for Norfolk Southern to continue safe, reliable and efficient rail operations on the Southern Tier route. These operations are critical to the economic viability and growth of the Southern Tier and other affected areas of New York.
Alternatives under consideration include: The no-build alternative; rehabilitation or reconstruction of the existing bridge; and construction of a new bridge at approximately the same location or at another location. The NEPA documentation will consider this list of alternatives and evaluations conducted to date, including information documented in a previously-published Draft EIS prepared pursuant to the New York State Environmental Review Act (SEQRA). The NEPA documentation will also consider reasonable and feasible alternatives identified during scoping. The EIS will identify a preferred alternative that meets the Project purpose and need of the project and is considered feasible based on engineering, cost, and social, economic, and environmental considerations.
Information describing the project, alternatives under consideration, and opportunities for agency and public involvement in the process will be sent to the appropriate Cooperating and Participating Agencies and to private organizations and citizens that have expressed an interest in this action. This information will also be available on the Project Web site (
The meetings will be accessible to persons with disabilities. If special services, such as an interpreter or sign language services, are needed, please contact Raymond Hessinger, New York State Department of Transportation.
To ensure that a full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA or NYSDOT at the addresses provided above.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and Request for Comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted on or before December 2, 2013.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS–21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., 3rd Floor, Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493–6292), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD–20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., 3rd Floor, Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493–6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On August 13, 2013, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the nature of the information collection request (ICR) and the expected burden for the ICR that will be submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
The Alleged Violation Reporting Form collects the name, phone number and email of the person submitting the alleged violations; the preferred method by which to contact the person; the railroad or company name that committed the alleged violation, the date and time the alleged violation occurred; the location the alleged violation occurred; and details about the violation. All information is voluntary. FRA will collect the information via a form on the FRA public Web site. FRA may share the information collected with FRA employees, State DOT partners, and law enforcement agencies.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it
44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), United States Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) hereby gives notice that it has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Emergency Processing under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments should be submitted as soon as possible upon publication of this notice in the
There is approximately $1,870,000 available in the Railroad Rehabilitation and Repair Grant Program, which was originally supported with up to $20,000,000 of Federal funds provided to FRA as part of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 110–329, September 30, 2008) (the Act). On November 6, 2008, FRA issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) soliciting applications for grants to fund eligible projects. FRA received applications and evaluated them according to criteria described in the notice. Based on the applications submitted and the subsequent evaluations, FRA selected projects totaling approximately $15,000,000 under this Program. Then on October 7, 2009, FRA issued another NOFA for the remaining $5,000,000. FRA received applications and evaluated them according to criteria described in the notice and subsequently selected 10 additional projects to receive funding. Due to a variety of factors, such as projects completed under their awarded amount, FRA has approximately $1,870,000 in funds remaining for this program.
Funds provided under this Program will assist Class II and Class III railroads to repair and rehabilitate infrastructure damaged by hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters in areas for which the President declared a major disaster after January 1, 2008, under Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974. Applicant eligibility is limited to State departments of transportation.
The funding provided under these grants will be made available to grantees on a reimbursement basis. FRA anticipates awarding grants to multiple eligible participants. FRA may choose to award a grant or grants within the available funds in any amount. The grantees must exhaust all other Federal and State resources prior to seeking assistance under this Program. FRA will begin accepting grant applications on November 6, 2013. Applications may be submitted until 5:00 p.m. EST, December 9, 2013.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of funding availability; solicitation of applications.
Under this Notice, the FRA encourages interested State departments of transportation to submit applications for grants to repair and rehabilitate Class II and Class III railroad infrastructure damaged by hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters in areas for which the President declared a major disaster after January 1, 2008, under Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974. The funding opportunities described in this notice are available under Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 20.314.
FRA will begin accepting grant applications on November 6, 2013. Applications may be submitted until 5 p.m. EST, December 9, 2013. FRA reserves the right to modify this deadline.
Applications for grants under this Program must be submitted electronically to “Grants.gov” at
For application materials that an applicant is unable to submit via Grants.Gov (such as oversized engineering drawings), applicants may submit an original and two (2) copies to FRA at the following address: Federal Railroad Administration, Attention: Katy Bryant, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 20,Washington, DC 20590.
Mary Ann McNamara, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590; Phone: (202) 493–6393; Fax: (202) 493–6333.
There is approximately $1,870,000 available in the Railroad Rehabilitation and Repair Grant Program, which was originally supported with up to $20,000,000 of Federal funds provided to FRA as part of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L.110–329, September 30, 2008) (the Act). On November 6, 2008, FRA issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) soliciting applications for grants to fund eligible projects. FRA received applications and evaluated them according to criteria described in the notice. Based on the applications submitted and the subsequent evaluations, FRA selected projects totaling approximately $15,000,000 under this Program. Then on October 7, 2009, FRA issued another NOFA for the remaining $5,000,000. FRA received applications and evaluated them according to criteria described in the notice and subsequently selected 10 additional projects to receive funding. Due to a variety of factors, such as projects completed under their awarded amount, FRA has approximately $1,870,000 in funds remaining for this program.
1. The inability of the Class II or Class III railroad to fund the project without Federal funding under the Railroad Rehabilitation and Repair Grant Program, including the applicant demonstrating that it has exhausted all other Federal and State resources.
2. The effects on rail operations, specifically the movement of freight, of the proposed rehabilitation or repair.
3. The likelihood of the continued railroad operations on the track that is proposed to be repaired or rehabilitated for more than three years after project work is complete.
1. Project Narrative/Statement of Work (additional instructions below);
2. Detailed Budget (additional instructions below);
3. SF 424: Application for Federal Assistance (available at
4. SF 424C: Budget Information-Construction (available at
5. SF 424D: Assurances-Construction (available at
6. SF LLL: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (available at
7. A copy of the applicant's most recent audit performed in compliance with OMB Circular A–133, if available (information on Circular A–133 can be found at
8. FRA's Additional Assurance and Certifications (available at
1. Designate a point of contact for the applicant and provide his or her name, title, and contact information, including phone number, mailing address and email address. The point of contact must be an employee of the applicant (i.e. a State employee).
2. Include an explanation of why the project is an eligible project (including the Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster declaration number, which is listed at
3. In responding to the first selection criteria listed above, applicants must
4. Provide an overview of all work done to date to rehabilitate and repair damage caused by the natural disaster.
5. Provide a detailed description of the scope of work for the proposed project and include the anticipated, or actual, project schedule. Describe the proposed project's physical location, mile-post limits, and include any drawings, plans, or schematics that have been prepared relating to the proposed project.
If funding requested under this Program is only going to support a portion of the overall rehabilitation and repair of the applicant's project, describe the complete project and specify which portion will involve Federal funding. In addition, FRA strongly encourages applicants to estimate total project costs and explain how the affected Class II and Class III railroad will finance the completed project.
6. Describe the source and amount of non-Federal funds, broken down by cash, equipment, or supplies.
7. Describe proposed project implementation and an overview of project management arrangements. Include descriptions of expected arrangements for project contracting, contract oversight, change-order management, risk management, and conformance to Federal requirements for project progress reporting (described in Appendices 1 and 2).
8. For the railroad(s) operating on the infrastructure proposed to be rehabilitated or repaired, describe the frequency of service, axle-load limits, and estimated railroad gross ton miles per mile for the first full year after completion of the project.
9. Describe the status or progress toward completing any environmental documentation or clearance for the proposed project under the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, section 4(f) of the DOT Act, or other applicable federal or state environmental impact assessment laws. FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545) (May 26, 1999) (
Grant recipients must follow all standard financial and program administration requirements, including:
• 49 CFR Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments
• 49 CFR Part 19, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A–110)
• 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A–87)
• 2 CFR Part 220, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A–21)
• 2 CFR Part 230, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations (OMB A–122)
• Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 31.2 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, Contracts with Commercial Organizations
• OMB Circular A–133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations
Grant recipients must follow all administrative and national policy requirements including: Procurement
As a Federal agency, FRA is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), which generally provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to Federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. Grant applications and related materials submitted by applicants pursuant to this guidance will become agency records, and thus are subject to the FOIA and to public release through individual FOIA requests. FRA also recognizes that certain information submitted in support of an application for funding in accordance with this guidance could be exempt from public release under FOIA as a result of the application of one of the FOIA exemptions, most particularly Exemption 4, which protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). In the context of this grant program, commercial or financial information obtained from a person could be confidential if disclosure is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained (see
Reporting requirements must be met throughout the life of the grant (additional detail will be included in the award package provided to selected applicants).
•
•
•
•
•
Grant recipients that expend $500,000 or more of Federal funds during their fiscal year, combined from all sources, are required to submit an organization-wide financial and compliance audit report. The audit must be performed in accordance with U.S. General Accountability Office, Government Auditing Standards, located at
Grant recipients will be monitored periodically by FRA to ensure that the project goals, objectives, performance requirements, timelines, milestones, budgets, and other related program criteria are being met. FRA may conduct monitoring activities through a combination of office-based reviews and onsite monitoring visits. Monitoring will involve the review and analysis of the financial, programmatic, and compliance issues relative to each program and will identify areas where technical assistance and other support may be needed. The recipient is responsible for monitoring award activities, including sub-awards and sub-grantees, to provide reasonable assurance that the award is being administered in accordance with Federal requirements. Financial monitoring responsibilities include the accounting of recipients and expenditures, cash management, maintaining of adequate financial records, and refunding expenditures disallowed by audits.
Project closeout occurs when all required project work and all administrative procedures described in 49 CFR section 262.19, as applicable, have been completed, and when FRA notifies the grant recipient and forwards the final Federal assistance payment, or when FRA acknowledges the grant recipient's remittance of the proper refund. Project closeout should not invalidate any continuing obligations imposed on the Grantee by an award or by the FRA's final notification or acknowledgment. Within 90 days after the period of performance end date of the grant or termination by FRA, grantees agree to submit a final Federal Financial Report (SF–425), a certification or summary of project expenses, a final report, and third party audit reports, as applicable.
The information contained in this appendix is intended to assist applicants with developing the SOW budget and OMB Standard Form 424C: Budget Information—Construction Programs. Applicants must present a detailed budget for the proposed project that includes both Federal funds and matching funds. Items of cost included in the budget must be reasonable, allocable, and necessary for the project. At a minimum, the budget should separate total cost of the
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Request for comments on technical report.
This notice announces NHTSA's publication of a Technical Report reviewing and evaluating certified-advanced air bags. The report's title is:
Comments must be received no later than February 28, 2014.
•
•
•
•
You may call Docket Management at 202–366–9826.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Procedural Matters section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Nathan K. Greenwell, Mathematical Statistician, Evaluation Division, NVS–431, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W53–438, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202–366–3860. Email:
The purpose of this report is to analyze the changes and redesigns of frontal air bags and their effect on occupant protection in frontal crashes. Frontal air bags have gone through a series of changes in response to amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, “Occupant crash protection.” In 1998–1999, vehicle manufacturers were permitted to sled test in lieu of a barrier impact to certify that the air bags would protect an unbelted occupant (“sled certification”), which allowed air bags to be redesigned by depowering and/or reducing the volume or rearward extent of air bags. Then in 2003–2006, air bags were required to not deploy at all for children or deploy only at a low level of force (“certified-advanced air bags”). Most manufacturers chose to not deploy air bags at all for children, using occupant detection sensors to suppress the air bags. Statistical analyses of crash data compare fatality risk with certified-advanced and sled-certified air bags.
• Fatality risk in frontal crashes was 4 percent lower for drivers with certified-advanced air bags than with sled-certified air bags; for right-front passengers, it was 2 percent higher; at neither position is the difference between certified-advanced and sled-certified air bags statistically significant.
• The fatality rate, in frontal crashes per billion vehicle registration years showed a 4 percent reduction overall, 5 percent reduction for drivers, and 5 percent reduction for child right-front passengers 12 and younger, after vehicles were equipped with certified-advanced air bags. None of these were statistically significant.
NHTSA welcomes public review of the technical report. NHTSA will submit to the Docket a response to the comments and, if appropriate, will supplement or revise the report.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket number of this document (NHTSA–2013–0115) in your comments.
Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Please send two paper copies of your comments to Docket Management, fax them, or use the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The mailing address is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, M–30, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The fax number is 1–202–366–3189. To use the Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to
We also request, but do not require you to send a copy to Nathan K. Greenwell, Mathematical Statistician, Evaluation Division, NVS–431, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W53–438, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (or email them to
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, M–30, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit them via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
In our response, we will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document (e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to
49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT.
Notice; Correction of Advisory Bulletin.
PHMSA published an Advisory Bulletin in the
Todd DelVecchio by phone at 727–213–1575 or by email at
49 CFR 192.11 requires that each plant that supplies petroleum gas by pipeline to a natural gas distribution system must meet the requirements of Part 192 and ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59 (2004) (192.11(a)). It also states that each pipeline system subject to Part 192 that transports only petroleum gas or petroleum gas/air mixtures must meet the requirements of Part 192 and of ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59 (192.11(b)).
At the time the primacy provision was added to the regulations in 1996, the standards took advantage of more current petroleum gas transportation technology and safety practices. In a July 22, 2009, (74 FR 36139) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), PHMSA proposed changing this primacy provision. PHMSA proposed changing this provision because the new NFPA standards issued in 2008 had many conflicts with Part 192 and PHMSA had noticed that operators were misinterpreting § 192.11(c). In response to the NPRM, commenters objected to the change suggesting it would result in unanticipated safety consequences. PHMSA did not take any action at the final rule stage but in the future, PHMSA may undertake a rulemaking to address this issue. This Advisory Bulletin serves to remind owners and operators of petroleum gas systems that they must continue to comply with certain requirements of Part 192.
• Inspection requirements for distribution mains (§§ 192.305 and 192.307).
• Backfill requirements for installing pipe in a ditch (§ 192.319).
• Underground pipe clearance requirements (§ 192.325).
• Valve requirements for service lines (§§ 192.363 and 192.365).
• Continuing surveillance (§ 192.613).
• Public awareness (§ 192.616).
• Operator qualification (Subpart N)
• Distribution Pipeline Integrity Management (Subpart P).
While not intended to be an exhaustive list, the following table highlights various requirements of Part 192 that are not addressed by ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59 (2004). Because ANSI/NPFA 58 and 59 (2004) do not have specific language on these topics, there is no conflict and therefore, Part 192 applies in these areas.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, PHMSA is publishing this notice of a special permit request received from a pipeline operator seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. This notice seeks public comments on this request, including comments on any safety or environmental impacts. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will evaluate the request and determine whether to grant or deny a special permit.
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by December 2, 2013.
Comments should reference the docket number for the specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
Comments are posted without changes or edits to
PHMSA has received a request for a special permit from a pipeline operator seeking relief from compliance with certain pipeline safety regulations. The request includes a technical analysis provided by the operator. The request has been filed at
Before acting on this special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comments closing date. Comments will be evaluated after this date if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment we receive in making our decision to grant or deny a request.
PHMSA has received the following special permit request:
49 U.S.C. 60118(c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.53.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before December 2, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 622–1295, email at
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice of rate to be used for Federal debt collection, and discount and rebate evaluation.
The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for computing and publishing the percentage rate that is to be used in assessing interest charges for outstanding debts owed to the Government (The Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended (codified at 31 U.S.C. 3717)). This rate is also to be used by agencies as a comparison point in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a cash discount. In addition, this rate is to be used in determining when agencies should pay purchase card invoices when the card issuer offers a rebate (5 CFR 1315.8). Notice is hereby given that the applicable rate is for calendar year 2014 is 1.00 percent.
January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014.
E-Commerce Division, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury, 401 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20227 (Telephone: 202–874–9428).
The rate reflects the current value of funds to the Treasury for use in connection with Federal Cash Management systems and is based on investment rates set for purposes of Public Law 95–147, 91 Stat. 1227. Computed each year by averaging Treasury Tax and Loan (TT&L) investment rates for the 12-month period ending every September 30, rounded to the nearest whole percentage, for applicability effective each January 1. Quarterly revisions will be made if the annual average, on a moving basis, changes by 2 percentage points. The rate for calendar year 2014 reflects the average investment rates for the 12-month period that ended September 30, 2013.
Applications for Financial Assistance (FA) or Technical Assistance (TA) awards through the CDFI Program FY 2014 Funding Round must be received by midnight, Eastern Time (ET), December 23, 2013.
A.
B.
C. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or none of the Applications submitted in response to this NOFA. The CDFI Fund also reserves the right to reallocate funds from the amount that is anticipated to be available through this NOFA to other CDFI Fund programs, particularly if the CDFI Fund determines that the number of awards made through this NOFA is fewer than projected.
D.
1.
The CDFI Fund reserves the right to award more or less than the amounts cited above in each category in the FY 2014 Funding Round, based upon available funding and other applicable factors.
In the recent past, Congress mandated that at least ten percent of the CDFI Program's appropriations be directed to counties that meet certain criteria for “persistent poverty.” This requirement continues under this NOFA. As a result, the CDFI Fund invites Applicants to indicate their level of participation in persistent poverty counties in their FY 2014 applications.
2.
All awards made through this NOFA must be used to support the Applicant's activities. Awards cannot be used to support the activities of, or otherwise be passed through, transferred, or co-awarded to, third-party entities, whether Affiliates, Subsidiaries, or others. The entity that is to carry out the responsibilities of the award and deploy the award funds (the Awardee) must be the entity that applies for the award. In the case where a CDFI bank-holding company Applicant intends to deploy its FA award through its 100 percent wholly-owned CDFI subsidiary bank, the Application must be made at the CDFI bank-holding company level and reflect consolidated activities and financial performance. Authorized representatives of both the holding company and the bank must certify that the information included in the Application represents that of the CDFI bank and that the award funds will be used to capitalize the CDFI bank for the activities outlined in the Application.
An Applicant may submit an Application for a TA grant or an FA award, but not both. For purposes of this NOFA, “FA awards” include awards made using CDFI Program FA funds and awards made using HFFI–FA funds.
1.
FA awards provide flexible financial support to CDFIs so they may execute the organizational goals outlined in their Applications. FA awards can be used in the following five categories: (i) Financial Products; (ii) Financial Services; (iii) Development Services; (iv) Loan Loss Reserves; and (v) Capital Reserves, and can include up to 15 percent of the total award in Administrative Funds to carry out the
The CDFI Fund may provide FA awards in the form of equity investments (including secondary capital in the case of certain Insured Credit Unions), grants, loans, deposits, credit union shares, or any combination thereof. As described in this NOFA, FA Applicants must meet certain matching funds requirements; the form of the FA Applicant's matching funds will dictate the form of the FA award. The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to provide a FA award in an amount other than that which the Applicant requests; however, the award amount will not exceed the Applicant's award request as stated in its Application.
2.
The CDFI Fund expects to make HFFI–FA awards of up to $5 million to Certified CDFIs that complete and submit a CDFI/NACA Program Application and a HFFI–FA Supplemental Questionnaire. The HFFI–FA Supplemental Questionnaire must be submitted with the CDFI/NACA Program Application. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to make awards less than $5 million based upon the questionnaires received and the funds available. HFFI–FA awards will be provided as a supplement to FA awards; therefore, only those Applicants that have been selected to receive a FA award through the CDFI and NACA Programs FY 2014 Funding Rounds will be eligible to receive a HFFI–FA award. Such Applicants will be rated and scored separately based upon the HFFI–FA supplemental questionnaire responses. HFFI–FA Applicants will be rated, among other elements, on the extent of community need, the quality of their HFFI–FA strategy, and their capacity to execute that strategy. The CDFI Fund may, in its discretion, perform additional due diligence on Applicants for this initiative.
3.
(a) The CDFI Fund provides TA in the form of a grant and reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to provide a TA grant for amounts other than which the Applicant requests; however, the TA grant amount will not exceed the Applicant's request as stated in its Application and the applicable budget chart.
(b) TA eligible uses are: (i) Personnel/salary; (ii) personnel/fringe; (iii) professional services; (iv) travel; (v) training; and (vi) equipment. Please see the Application for details on TA uses. TA grants must be used to build the Applicant's capacity. An Applicant that is an Emerging CDFI and has not received a previous TA award will be rated, among other elements, on its plan to meet the requirements of a Certified CDFI within two years. An Applicant that is an Emerging CDFI and a prior TA awardee will be rated, among other elements, on its plan to meet the CDFI certification goal specified in its previous CDFI Program Assistance Agreement.
All Awardees, prior to receiving award funds, must sign an Assistance Agreement, which contains the award's terms and conditions. For further information, see Section VI.A of this NOFA.
The Regulations specify the eligibility requirements that each Applicant must meet in order to be eligible to apply for assistance under this NOFA. FA Applicants must be either a Certified CDFI or Certifiable CDFI as defined below in Table 5 and have submitted a certification application in accordance with the deadlines in this NOFA. TA Applicants must be Certifiable or Emerging CDFIs as defined in Table 5 or Certified CDFIs that meet the SECA criteria in Table 3 of this NOFA but have not received FA awards after the FY 2008 funding round.
1.
2.
3.
For purposes of this NOFA, eligible FA Applicants include Certified/Certifiable CDFIs as defined in Table 5; eligible TA Applicants must be Certifiable or Emerging CDFIs, as defined in Table 5 or Certified CDFIs that meet the SECA criteria in Table 3 of this NOFA but have not received FA awards after the FY 2008 funding round. The CDFI Fund's Regulations require that CDFI Program FA awardees must be certified.
All Applicants must be certified or recertified as of June 1, 2014 or any date thereafter prior to the announcement of awards; Applicants that are in a cure period to remedy recertification deficiencies as of June 1, 2014 or any date thereafter prior to the announcement of awards will not be eligible for a FA award under this NOFA. Please see the CDFI Fund's Web site for additional information regarding recertification and cure periods at Frequently Asked Questions regarding CDFI Recertification at
4.
Prior Awardees should note the following:
1.
Please see the following table for other prior Awardee requirements and considerations.
2.
1.
FA Applicants must provide dollar-for-dollar non-Federal matching funds for every CDFI Program award dollar. The FY 2014 Continuing Resolution (CR) requires matching funds for Category II/Core FA and HFFI–FA Applicants only. The CR has waived the matching funds requirement for Category 1/SECA and NACA Applicants and matching funds are not required for TA Applicants. Matching funds must be comparable in form and value to the FA award. This means that Category II FA Applicants must show they have matching funds in-hand or firmly committed from non-Federal sources equal to the amount requested from the CDFI Fund. Applicants cannot use matching funds from a prior FA award under the CDFI Program or under another federal grant or award program to satisfy the matching funds requirement of this NOFA. If an Applicant seeks to use matching funds
2. The CDFI Fund will not consider any FA Applicant for an award that has no matching funds in-hand or firmly committed as of this NOFA's Application deadline. Specifically, FA Applicants must meet the following matching funds requirements:
(a)
(b)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Applicants must submit Applications electronically through Grants.gov. The CDFI Fund will not accept Applications through myCDFIFund accounts nor will Applications be accepted via email, mail, facsimile, or other forms of communication, except in circumstances approved by the CDFI Fund beforehand. If Applicants submit multiple Applications, the CDFI Fund will only review the last Application submitted; all other Applications will be considered ineligible.
In compliance with Public Law 106–107 and Section 5(a) of the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act, the CDFI Fund is required to accept Applications submitted through the Grants.gov electronic system. The CDFI Fund strongly recommends Applicants start the registration process as soon as possible and visit
Any entity applying for Federal grants or other forms of Federal financial assistance through Grants.gov, must be registered in SAM. Applicants must verify that their registration is current and active in SAM. New Applicants must properly register and wait for the account to be activated, which does not occur simultaneously and may take weeks to complete for Applicants that have an EIN. If an Applicant does not have an EIN, the Applicant should allow several weeks for obtaining the information from the IRS when requesting the EIN via phone, fax, mail or Internet. The CDFI Fund will not consider Applicants that fail to properly register or activate their account in SAM and as a result, are unable to submit their Applications before the deadline. The CDFI Fund does not maintain the SAM registration process, so Applicants must contact SAM directly for issues related to registration. The CDFI Fund strongly encourages Applicants to ensure that their SAM registration is updated and that their accounts are active. For information regarding SAM, please visit
myCDFIFund is the CDFI Fund's primary means of communication with Applicants. Every Applicant is responsible for ensuring its myCDFIFund account is up-to-date at all times. All Applicants must register as an organization and as a user with myCDFIFund before the Application deadline. An Applicant that fails to properly register and update its myCDFIFund account may miss important communication with the CDFI Fund that could impact its Application. For more information on myCDFIFund, please see the “Frequently Asked Questions” link posted at
The Application and related documents can be found on the Grants.gov and the CDFI Fund's Web sites. The CDFI Fund anticipates posting the Application and related documents to the CDFI Fund's Web site on the same day that the NOFA is released or shortly thereafter. Once an Application is submitted to Grants.gov, the Applicant will not be allowed to change any element of the Application. The CDFI Fund, however, may contact the Applicant to clarify or confirm Application information.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and an individual is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the CDFI Program funding Application has been assigned the following control number: 1559–0021.
1. Please see the following table for critical deadlines that are relevant to the FY 2014 Funding Round.
2.
Not applicable.
For allowable uses of FA proceeds, please see the Regulations at 12 CFR 1805.301.
Applicants must complete, and the CDFI Fund will only accept, the Application as provided in Grants.gov and the CDFI Fund's Web site. The FY 2014 Application is a compilation of multiple mandatory documents including a: (1) A PDF fillable applicant intake form; (2) a Microsoft Excel Workbook; (3) a Microsoft Word Narrative template; and (4) other mandatory attachments. (Applicants must use the Microsoft Word Narrative template the CDFI Fund provides; alternative templates/formats will not be scored.) Applicants should not submit information that has not been specifically requested in this NOFA or the Application. Applicants should not submit documents such as strategic plans or market studies unless the CDFI Fund has specifically requested such documents in the Application.
1.
2.
3.
(a)
Applicants whose activities are part of a broader neighborhood revitalization strategy and/or that target marginalized or isolated populations will be scored more favorably in the section of the Application pertaining to Partnerships.
(b)
(c)
4.
5.
6.
Each Applicant selected to receive an award must enter into an Assistance Agreement with the CDFI Fund in order to receive a disbursement(s). The Assistance Agreement will set forth the award's terms and conditions, including but not be limited to the award: (i) Amount; (ii) type; (iii) uses; (iv) targeted market or activities; (v) performance goals and measures; and (vi) reporting requirements. FA Assistance Agreements will usually have three-year performance periods; TA Assistance Agreements will usually have two-year performance periods. All FA and TA Awardees that are not Insured CDFIs will be required to provide the CDFI Fund with a certificate of good standing from the secretary of state for the Awardee's state of incorporation. This certificate can often be acquired online on the secretary of state Web site for the Awardee's state of incorporation and must generally be dated within 270 days from the date the Awardee executes the Assistance Agreement. Due to potential backlogs in state government offices, Applicants are advised to submit requests for certificates of good standing at the time that they submit their Applications.
If prior to entering into an Assistance Agreement, information (including administrative error) comes to the CDFI Fund's attention that adversely affects the Awardee's: (i) Eligibility for an award; (ii) certification as a CDFI (to the extent that the Award is conditional upon CDFI certification); or (iii) Application evaluation as conducted by the CDFI Fund; or (iv) indicates fraud or mismanagement on the Awardee's part, the CDFI Fund may, in its discretion and without advance notice to the Awardee, terminate the award or take such other actions as it deems appropriate. The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to rescind an award if the Awardee fails to return the Assistance Agreement, signed by the authorized representative of the Awardee, and/or provide the CDFI Fund with any other requested documentation, within the CDFI Fund's deadlines.
In addition, the CDFI Fund, reserves the right in its sole discretion, to terminate and rescind the Assistance Agreement and the award made under this NOFA pending the criteria described in the following table:
1.
2.
A. The CDFI Fund will respond to questions concerning this NOFA and the Application between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, starting on the date that the NOFA is published through three business days prior to the Application deadline. During the two business days prior to the Application deadline, the CDFI Fund will not respond to questions for Applicants until after the Application deadline. Applications and other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained from the CDFI Fund's Web site at
B. Applicants may contact the CDFI Fund as follows:
C.
D.
The CDFI Fund may conduct webinars or host information sessions for organizations that are considering applying to, or are interested in learning about, the CDFI Fund's programs. For further information, please visit the CDFI Fund's Web site at
12 U.S.C. 4701, et seq; 12 CFR parts 1805 and 1815.
Applications for Financial Assistance (FA) or Technical Assistance (TA) awards through the FY 2014 Funding Round of the NACA Program must be received by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time (ET), December 23, 2013.
A.
B.
C. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or none of the Applications submitted in response to this NOFA. The CDFI Fund also reserves the right to reallocate funds from the amount that is anticipated to be available through this NOFA to other CDFI Fund programs, particularly if the CDFI Fund determines that the number of awards
D.
1.
In the recent past, Congress mandated that at least ten percent of the CDFI Program's appropriations be directed to counties that meet certain criteria for “persistent poverty.” This requirement continues under this NOFA. As a result, the CDFI Fund invites Applicants to indicate their level of participation in persistent poverty counties in their FY 2014 applications. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to award more or less than the amount cited above in the FY 2014 Funding Round, based upon available funding and other applicable factors.
2.
All awards made through this NOFA must be used to support the Applicant's activities. Awards cannot be used to support the activities of, or otherwise be passed through, transferred, or co-awarded to, third-party entities, whether Affiliates, Subsidiaries, or others with the exception for Sponsoring Entitles that can use TA funds to create a separate legal entity and then transfer the TA funds to help the entity become a Certified CDFI serving a Native Community. The entity that is to carry out the responsibilities of the award and deploy the award funds (the Awardee) must be the entity that applies for the award. In the case where a CDFI bank-holding company Applicant intends to deploy its FA award through its 100 percent wholly-owned CDFI subsidiary bank, the Application must be made at the CDFI bank-holding company level and reflect consolidated activities and financial performance. Authorized representatives of both the holding company and the bank must certify that the information included in the Application represents that of the CDFI bank and that the award funds will be used to capitalize the CDFI bank for the activities outlined in the Application.
B.
1.
The CDFI Fund may provide FA awards in the form of equity investments (including secondary capital in the case of certain Insured Credit Unions), grants, loans, deposits, credit union shares, or any combination thereof. As described in this NOFA, FA Applicants must meet certain matching funds requirements; the form of the FA Applicant's matching funds will dictate the form of the FA award. The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to provide an FA award in an amount other than that which the Applicant requests; however, the award amount will not exceed the Applicant's award request as stated in its Application.
2.
(b) TA eligible uses are: (i) Personnel/salary; (ii) personnel/fringe; (iii) professional services; (iv) travel; (v) training; and (vi) equipment. Please see the Application for details on TA uses. TA grants must be used to build the Applicant's capacity. An Applicant that is an Emerging CDFI serving Native Communities and has not received a
C.
In order to be eligible for a NACA FA award, an Applicant must be a Certified CDFI or Certifiable CDFI that has identified one or more Native Communities as part of its certified Target Market. Furthermore, each NACA FA Applicant must demonstrate that at least 50 percent of its past activities were in one or more Native Communities and describe how it will target its lending/investing activities to one or more Native Communities. All NACA FA Applicants must demonstrate strong Community Partnerships with Native Communities as well.
In order to be eligible for a TA award, an Applicant must be a Certifiable or Emerging CDFI that serves or will serve Native Communities. A Sponsoring Entity is also eligible to apply for a TA grant if it does not have a prior active award from the CDFI Fund or if the certification goal has been satisfied in its prior active award and it is proposing to create another CDFI that will serve one or more Native Communities. The Sponsoring Entity will be expected to create the Emerging CDFI within one year of the Effective Date in its FY 2014 Assistance Agreement with the CDFI Fund and must include the Emerging CDFI as a co-awardee in the Assistance Agreement once it has been legally created. The Sponsoring Entity and the Emerging CDFI will be given four years from the Effective Date in the FY 2014 Assistance Agreement for the Emerging CDFI to become certified. Beginning in FY 2014, an Emerging CDFI will be allowed to receive no more than three TA awards as an uncertified CDFI. For purposes of this NOFA, a Sponsoring Entity is an entity that proposes to create a separate legal entity that will become a Certified CDFI serving a Native Community. Sponsoring Entities include: (a) A Tribe, Tribal entity, Alaska Native Village, Village Corporation, Regional Corporation, Non-Profit Regional Corporation/Association, or Inter-Tribal or Inter-Village organization; or (b) an organization whose primary mission is to serve a Native Community including, but not limited to, an Urban Indian Center, a Tribally Controlled Community College, community development corporation, training or education organization, or Chamber of Commerce and that primarily serves Native Community with “primary” meaning, at least 50 percent of its activities are directed toward the Native Community.
1.
2.
3.
Prior Awardees should note the following:
1.
Please see the following table for other prior Awardee requirements and considerations.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
A.
B.
The CDFI Fund will not consider Applicants that fail to properly register in Grants.gov or to confirm they are properly registered and as a result, are unable to submit their Applications before the deadline. Applicants are reminded that the CDFI Fund does not maintain the Grants.gov registration or submittal process so Applicants must contact Grants.gov directly for issues related to that aspect of the Application submission process. Please see the following link for information on getting started on Grants.gov:
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
1. Please see the following table for critical deadlines that are relevant to the FY 2014 Funding Round.
2.
H.
I.
A.
1.
2.
3.
Applicants whose activities are part of a broader neighborhood revitalization strategy and/or that target marginalized or isolated populations will be scored more favorably in the section of the Application pertaining to Partnerships.
(b)
(c)
4.
5.
6.
A.
If prior to entering into an Assistance Agreement, information (including administrative error) comes to the CDFI Fund's attention that adversely affects the Awardee's: (i) Eligibility for an award; (ii) certification as a CDFI (to the extent that the Award is conditional upon CDFI certification); or (iii) Application evaluation as conducted by the CDFI Fund; or (iv) indicates fraud or mismanagement on the Awardee's part, the CDFI Fund may, in its discretion and without advance notice to the Awardee, terminate the award or take such other actions as it deems appropriate. The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to rescind an award if the Awardee fails to return the Assistance Agreement, signed by the authorized representative of the Awardee, and/or provide the CDFI Fund with any other requested documentation, within the CDFI Fund's deadlines.
In addition, the CDFI Fund, reserves the right in its sole discretion, to terminate and rescind the Assistance Agreement and the award made under this NOFA pending the criteria described in the following table:
B.
2.
A. The CDFI Fund will respond to questions concerning this NOFA and the Application between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, starting on the date that the NOFA is published through three business days prior to the Application deadline. During the two business days prior to the Application deadline, the CDFI Fund will not respond to questions for Applicants until after the Application deadline. Applications and other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained from the CDFI Fund's Web site at
B. Applicants may contact the CDFI Fund as follows:
C.
D.
The CDFI Fund may conduct webinars or host information sessions for organizations that are considering applying to, or are interested in learning about, the CDFI Fund's programs. For further information, please visit the CDFI Fund's Web site at
12 U.S.C. 4701, et seq; 12 CFR parts 1805 and 1815.
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, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 2, 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 or email
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. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 30, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632–8924 or FAX (202) 632–8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
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, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 2, 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 or email
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. The
By direction of the Secretary.
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, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 2, 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 or email
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. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 30, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461–5870 or Fax (202) 495–5397.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Final rule.
This final rule corrects editorial errors and amends certain requirements in response to administrative appeals submitted by persons affected by certain final rules published in the
Aaron Wiener or Shane Kelley, International Standards, telephone (202) 366–8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
This final rule corrects editorial errors and amends certain requirements in response to administrative appeals submitted by persons affected by the final rules published under Docket Numbers: PHMSA–2009–0126 (HM–215K) [78 FR 1101], PHMSA–2012–0027 (HM–215L) [78 FR 987], PHMSA–2011–0138 (HM–218G) [78 FR 15303], and PHMSA–2011–0142 (HM–219) [78 FR 14702.]
On January 7, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published final rules under Docket Numbers PHMSA–2009–0126 (HM–215K) [78 FR 1101] and PHMSA–2012–0027 (HM–215L) [78 FR 987] to maintain alignment with international standards by incorporating various amendments, including changes to proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements. These revisions were necessary to harmonize the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171–180) with recent changes made to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG), the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI), and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods—Model Regulations (UN Model Regulations). This final rule responds to four appeals and certain comments concerning amendments in the January 7, 2013 final rules. This rulemaking also corrects various errors made during the development of the rule and the printing process. Because the amendments adopted herein impose no new regulatory burden on any person, these amendments are being made effective without the usual 30-day delay following publication. In addition, because these amendments do not impose new requirements, notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary.
On April 26, 2012, PHMSA published an NPRM under Docket PHMSA 2011–0138 [77 FR 24885] (HM–218G) that proposed amendments to update and clarify existing requirements of the HMR. The NPRM and the March 11, 2013 final rule are part of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Retrospective Regulatory Review (RRR) designed to identify ways to improve the HMR. The NPRM proposed amendments to update and clarify existing requirements by incorporating changes into the HMR based on PHMSA initiatives. We identified the proposed amendments through an extensive review of the HMR and letters of interpretation that we had previously issued. In addition, the NPRM proposed to incorporate a special permit with a longstanding history of safety into the HMR, and included a response to a petition for rulemaking. This rulemaking makes editorial changes to correct errors made during the development of the HM–218G rule.
On May 24, 2012, PHMSA published an NPRM under Docket PHMSA 2011–0142 [77 FR 30976] (HM–219). The NPRM and the March 7, 2013 final rule are part of the DOT's RRR designed to identify ways to improve the HMR. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires Federal agencies to give interested persons the right to petition an agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). Under PHMSA's rulemaking procedures, you can request a change to the HMR. 49 CFR 106.95 permits you to ask PHMSA to add, amend, or delete a regulation by filing a petition for rulemaking containing adequate support for the requested action. In the NPRM, we responded to eight petitions for rulemaking submitted to us by various stakeholders. We proposed to amend the HMR to update, clarify, or provide relief from miscellaneous regulatory requirements at the request of the regulated community. This rulemaking responds to administrative appeals and makes editorial corrections.
In response to the January 7, 2013 final rule, HMT Associates, L.L.C. (HMT) submitted an administrative appeal as follows:
In the January 7, 2013 final rule, PHMSA revised section 173.167 for consistency with the ICAO TI. Specifically, the amendments were intended to mirror the stand-alone closure requirements and other provisions prescribed in Packing
In its administrative appeal, HMT correctly points out that the revisions to § 173.167 in the January 7, 2013 final rule inadvertently provided the opposite effect by excepting such packages from the requirements of Subpart B of Part 173
As previously stated, in the January 7, 2013 final rule, § 173.167 was revised for consistency with the consumer commodity (ID8000) provisions under Packing Instruction Y963 of the ICAO TI. As a result, unintended consequences were forced upon U.S. exporters of such articles and substances. For example, in its administrative appeal, HMT points out that an exporter must comply with:
• Section 171.22(g)(5) when using international standards to prepare shipments;
• Section 171.22(g)(5) prescribes compliance with the general packaging requirements in §§ 173.24 and 173.24(a);
• Section 173.24(i) prescribes compliance with § 173.27; and
• Section 173.27 requires a secondary means of closure on inner packagings of combination packages containing liquids. Such a requirement is inconsistent with Packing Instruction Y963 of the ICAO TI.
We agree with HMT. In this final rule, we are granting its administrative appeal by revising §§ 173.24(i) and 173.167. Consequently, revising § 171.22(g)(5) is not necessary.
In response to the January 7, 2013 final rule, administrative appeals were submitted by the following companies and organizations:
These administrative appeals are discussed in detail below.
PHMSA received one administrative appeal from DGAC related to our adoption of Amendment 1 to the 5th revised edition of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria. Specifically, DGAC is concerned that we did not provide in § 173.185(a)(1) for the continued manufacture of lithium cells and batteries of a type tested in accordance with the 5th revised edition of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria. The DGAC appeal says that this action would seem to require that all cells and batteries first transported after January 1, 2006, will have to be of a type tested in conformance with the newly incorporated edition of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria.
DGAC recommends that PHMSA clarify that, irrespective of the January 1, 2006 date in § 173.185(a)(1), newly manufactured cells and batteries of a type successfully tested to the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, 3rd revised edition, Amendment 1, or a later edition, may be transported without the need for the cell or battery type to be retested and that cells and batteries already distributed and tested to a previous edition of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria may continue to be transported.
DGAC correctly points out that we did not, consistent with previous practice, include a grandfather provision for cells and batteries of a type that meets the 5th revised edition. While this does not change our intent to continue to permit the continued manufacture and transportation of lithium cells and batteries of a type meeting the requirements of a previously authorized edition of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, we agree this may result in confusion and unnecessary retesting of previously validated designs.
In this final rule, we are accepting DGAC's appeal. We are adopting its recommendation by adding a clarifying amendment to § 173.185. This amendment will provide a straightforward means of permitting the continued manufacture and transport of lithium cell and battery designs that were tested in accordance with the version of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria effective when the cell/battery was first manufactured.
PHMSA received administrative appeals from DGAC and Kilofarad International relating to § 173.176. This section was added in the January 7, 2013 final rule (HM–215L) and prescribes the requirements for capacitors. DGAC and Kilofarad International contend that § 173.176 does not align with the ICAO TI, in that an exception for short circuit protection for a capacitor, or a capacitor in a module with an energy storage capacity less than or equal to 10 Wh, provided in special provision of A186 of the ICAO TI, is not provided in § 173.176.
Upon review, we agree and grant the appeals of DGAC and Kilofarad International as they pertain to § 173.176. In this final rule, we are correcting this oversight by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of § 173.176 to maintain consistency with the ICAO TI. A detailed discussion of this change is included in the Section-by-Section Review for § 173.176.
PHMSA received an administrative appeal from SAAMI regarding various amendments in HM–215L made to requirements for transporting certain Class 1 (explosive) materials. The SAAMI appeal consists of eight separate issues that are summarized and discussed below.
SAAMI notes that in HM–215L the word “None” was removed from Column (6) label codes and replaced with “1.4S” for the entries for UN0012, “Cartridges, small arms” and UN0014, “Cartridges, small arms, blank” in the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT). SAAMI notes that there was no discussion of this change in the preamble to the final rule and that the change was not proposed in the NPRM. SAAMI asks if these changes were inadvertent. We acknowledge that there were inadvertent changes, and therefore we are putting the word “None” back in Column (6) for these two entries.
SAAMI states that for the HMT entry UN0323, “Cartridges, power device” the reference to § 173.63 was removed from Column (8A) and replaced with the word “None.” SAAMI requests that PHMSA reinsert the reference to § 173.63 in Column (8A), as the removal of this reference breaks the connection to the ORM–D provisions for this table entry. We agree, and we will reinsert the reference.
In HM–215L, several changes were made to the “Cartridges, small arms” and “Cartridges, power device” HMT entries to ensure these articles would
SAAMI requests that the word “None” should be deleted and left blank in Column (4) for the ORM–D “Cartridges, power device” entry to be consistent with the ORM–D entries for “Cartridges, small arms” and “Consumer commodity”. We agree and we will delete the word “None” and leave the column blank for this entry.
SAAMI notes that the packing group entries in Column (5) for UN0501 and UN0509 in the HMT are blank, but for consistency with the other Class 1 (explosive) entries these should be changed to “II”. We agree, and we are granting SAAMI's appeal on this issue.
The SAAMI appeal asks that we clarify section 173.63(b) to ensure the terms “Cartridges, power device (used to project fastening devices) and “Cartridges, power device,” are appropriately identified within the section. We agree that some clarifying amendments are needed to § 173.63 to ensure proper shipment of “Cartridges, power device” and “Cartridges, power device (used to project fastening devices).”
SAAMI requests that clarifying text be added to indicate that packages properly prepared in accordance with the requirements of § 173.63(b) receive relief from the loading limits in § 175.75. It was never our intent to subject these shipments to these requirements when they have historically received relief from the accessibility requirements of § 175.75. A shipment of UN0012, UN0014, or UN0055 properly packaged and marked in accordance with § 173.63(b), is excepted from the requirements of § 175.75(c) and (e)(1) if it is declared on air transport shipping papers as a limited quantity or not. We agree, and we are granting SAAMI's appeal on this issue by amending the list of materials that are excepted from the inaccessible loading limits in § 175.75.
SAAMI contends that the following language, added to § 173.63 in the January 7, 2013 final rule (HM–215L), constitutes a new requirement for limited quantities of small arms ammunition to be marked with the proper shipping when transported by air that was not required by the final rule published on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3308, HM–215K):
In addition, packages containing such articles offered for transportation by aircraft must be marked with the proper shipping name as prescribed in the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table of this subchapter.
We disagree. The addition of the above language in the January 7, 2013 final rule (HM–215L) clarified that for transportation by air, these articles are required to be marked with the proper shipping name. This clarification did not impose a new or additional marking requirement. The requirement for packages containing these articles to be marked with the proper shipping name, when transported by air, was included in the January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3308, HM–215K) final rule, which provided in § 173.63, “Packages containing such articles must be marked as prescribed in § 172.315.” Section 172.315(a) further provides, “Except for transportation by aircraft or as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a package containing a limited quantity of hazardous material is not required to be marked with the proper shipping name and identification (ID) number when marked in accordance with the white square-on-point limited quantity marking * * *” It is clear that under the final rule published on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3308, HM–215K), packages containing these articles were not excepted from the requirement to be marked with the proper shipping name when transported by air. In addition, this requirement is consistent with the ICAO TI that also requires packages containing these articles to be marked with the proper shipping name. Accordingly, we are denying SAAMI's appeal as it relates to this issue.
In response to the March 7, 2013 final rule, administrative appeals were submitted by the following companies and organizations:
Section 173.171 of the HMR allows smokeless powder for small arms that has been classed as Division 1.3C (Explosive) to be reclassed for domestic transportation as a Division 4.1 (Flammable Solid) material for transportation by motor vehicle, rail car, vessel, or cargo-only aircraft, subject to certain conditions. In a final rule published on January 14, 2009 under Docket Nos. PHMSA–2007–0065 (HM–224D) and PHMSA–2008–0005 (HM–215J), we added a new description to the HMT for UN0509, “Powder, smokeless, Division 1.4C.” However, the rulemaking did not extend the exception provided for Division 1.3C in § 173.171 to Division 1.4C materials.
SAAMI, in a petition (P–1559), requested that we amend § 173.171 to allow Division 1.4C smokeless powder to be reclassed as a Division 4.1 material. SAAMI sought, with proper examination and approval, to allow a Division 1.4C material which, by definition (see § 173.50), poses the lesser safety risk when compared with Division 1.3 explosives, to be reclassed as a Division 4.1 material.
We included SAAMI's proposal, with some modifications, in the HM–219 NPRM. The petition asked that we amend § 173.171(a) by adding the text “and 1.4C” after the text “1.3.” In the HM–219 NPRM, we revised § 173.171 to address Division 1.4C explosives and added a new separate paragraph for Division 1.4C explosives to ensure that the allowable net mass in the combination packagings did not exceed the net mass of the material that had been examined and approved. In addition, we proposed to revise Special Provision 16 in § 172.102 to reflect the addition of Division 1.4C explosives. We received a comment to the NPRM from SAAMI stating that they:
[H]ave studied this proposed change, and find that the sole effect is to allow a flammable solid which emanated from a Division 1.4 classification to exceed the current eight pound limit per inner package. Unless a need for this change is substantiated, we see no reason why the flammable solid classification limit for inner packages should be amended. Furthermore this would be unenforceable in the field.
We considered this and the other comments to the NPRM, and published a final rule on March 7, 2013, under Docket Number PHMSA–2011–0142 (HM–219). With regard to the amendments adopted in the final rule for smokeless powder for small arms we modified the amendments proposed in the NPRM as follows:
• Special Provision 16 of § 172.102 was revised to read: “This description applies to smokeless powder and other propellant powders that are used as powder for small arms and have been
• The introductory paragraph of § 173.171 was revised to read: “Powders that have been classed in Division 1.3 or Division 1.4C may be reclassed in Division 4.1, for domestic transportation by motor vehicle, rail car, vessel, or cargo-only aircraft, subject to the following conditions.”
• Section 173.171(a) was revised to read: “Powders that have been approved as Division 1.3C or Division 1.4C may be reclassed to Division 4.1 in accordance with §§ 173.56 and 173.58 of this part.”
• Section 173.171(c) was revised to read: “Only combination packagings with inner packagings not exceeding 3.6 kg (8 pounds) net mass and outer packaging of UN 4G fiberboard boxes meeting the Packing Group I standards are authorized. Inner packagings must be arranged and protected so as to prevent simultaneous ignition of the contents. The complete package must be of the same type that has been examined as required in § 173.56 of this part.”
• Section 173.171(d) was revised to read: “The net weight of smokeless powder in any one box (one package) must not exceed 7.3 kg (16 pounds).”
On March 17, 2013, SAAMI submitted an appeal to the regulatory changes adopted in the HM–219 final rule with respect to smokeless powder. SAAMI requested that we remove “all changes in the final rule which were not in the proposed rule, except those changes which deleted extraneous text from the proposed rule in response to SAAMI's comments.” SAAMI also noted in its appeal that HM–219 inadvertently showed “Forbidden” in Column (9B) in conjunction with the listing in the HMT for UN0509, “Smokeless powder, Division 1.4C.”
SAAMI appealed the wording in the HM–219 final rule of Special Provision 16. It indicated that it should read as it did in the NPRM, which was: “[t]his description applies to smokeless powder and other solid propellants that are used as powder for small arms and have been classed as Division 1.3, 1.4 and 4.1 in accordance with § 173.56 of this subchapter.” We revised Special Provision 16 in the final rule because it was our intent to clearly indicate that only smokeless powder or propellant in powder form may qualify for reclassification as Division 4.1, and ensure that powders that have hazard properties different from “propellants” could not be reclassified into Division 4.1. SAAMI indicated that the introductory text in § 173.171 should read as follows:
Smokeless powder for small arms which has been classed in Division 1.3 or Division 1.4 may be reclassed in Division 4.1, for domestic transportation by motor vehicle, rail car, vessel, or cargo-only aircraft, subject to the following conditions:
As with Special Provision 16, by changing the terminology in the final rule from “solid propellants” to “propellant powders” it was our intent to clearly indicate that only smokeless powder or propellant in powder form may qualify for reclassification as Division 4.1, and we wanted to ensure that powders that have hazard properties different from “propellants” could not be reclassified into Division 4.1. In the HM–219 final rule, we had revised the language in § 173.171(a) to read: “Powders that have been approved as Division 1.3C or Division 1.4C may be reclassed to Division 4.1 in accordance with §§ 173.56 and 173.58 of this part.” SAAMI indicated that § 173.171(a) should read:
(a) The powder must be examined and approved for a Division 1.3 or Division 1.4 and Division 4.1 classification in accordance with §§ 173.56 and 173.58 of this part.
As indicated in the HM–219 final rule, our intent with the revision to §§ 173.171(c) and 173.171(d) was to ensure that the allowable net mass did not exceed the net mass of the material that had been examined and approved. The consequences of the revision detailed in SAAMI's appeal were unintentional. SAAMI indicated that the amendments to §§ 173.171(c) and 173.171(d) should be retracted. They state:
The deletion of text in paragraph (d) ignores [that paragraph (d) authorizes the intermixing of different inner packaging of tested and approved combination packagings with no further testing provided certain conditions are met and that several packages meeting the condition set forth in § 173.171(d) may be overpacked together if the 100 pound net mass limitation is not exceeded] and prohibits the ability to mix brands and sizes of powder without further EX approval or performance oriented packaging (POP) testing.
In this response to SAAMI's appeal, we are revising the listing in the HMT for UN0509, “Smokeless powder, Division 1.4C” in Column (9B) to read “75 kg” and revising the vessel stowage codes in Columns (10A) and (10B) to show “2” and “25,” respectively. These were unintentional typographical errors. This was not the intention of the HM–219 rulemaking and we are correcting those errors in this final rule.
We are revising special provision 16 to read as it did in the HM–219 NPRM, and the introductory language in § 173.171 to read: “Smokeless powder for small arms which has been classed in Division 1.3 or Division 1.4 may be reclassed in Division 4.1, for domestic transportation by motor vehicle, rail car, vessel, or cargo-only aircraft, subject to the following conditions.” We are also reestablishing §§ 173.171(c) and 173.171(d) to read as they did before the amendments of HM–219 were adopted. These amendments were made in the interest of clarification.
As the revisions to the wording to § 173.171(a) in HM–219 were designed to provide relief for shippers of smokeless powder, in that they would not be required to retest powders already classed as Division 1.3C or 1.4C, we are retaining the wording as shown in the HM–219 final rule for § 173.171(a).
In HM–219, PHMSA responded to Shell Chemicals' petition (P–1522) to remove from the HMT the listing for “Gasohol, with not more than 10% ethanol.” Shell Chemicals stated that the proper shipping names for “Gasoline, includes gasoline mixed with ethyl alcohol (ethanol), with not more than 10% alcohol” and “Ethanol and gasoline mixture or Ethanol and motor spirit mixture or Ethanol and petrol mixture with more than 10% ethanol,” provide the necessary entries for accurate and specific descriptions of these fuel blends. Consistent with the removal of Gasohol from the HMT, Shell Chemicals requested that we remove reference to Gasohol in §§ 172.336(c)(4) and 172.336(c)(5), which contain hazard communication requirements for compartmented cargo tanks, tank cars, or cargo tanks containing these fuels. These provisions were amended as the result of a final rule issued on January 28, 2008, under Docket No. PHMSA–05–21812 (HM–218D), and were intended to help emergency responders identify and respond to the hazards unique to fuel blends with high ethanol concentrations.
Shell Chemicals also requested that we remove special provision 172 from Column (7) in association with all packing groups for the Proper Shipping Name “Alcohols, n.o.s.” Special provision 172 states that “this entry includes alcohol mixtures containing up to 5% petroleum products.”
In its petition, Shell Chemicals contended that:
Canada does not permit the use of UN1987, Alcohols, n.o.s.' for alcohol mixtures containing up to 5% petroleum products. A shipment originating in the United States,
For these reasons, Shell Chemicals stated that these blends should not be permitted to be transported under the “UN 1987, Alcohols, n.o.s.”; rather, “NA 1987, Denatured alcohol,” and “UN 3475, Ethanol and gasoline mixture or Ethanol and motor spirit mixture or Ethanol and petrol mixture,” are more appropriate descriptions.
In the HM–219 NPRM, we proposed removal of the entry “Gasohol” from the HMT and we retained special provision 172 in association with “Alcohols, n.o.s.” We indicated that, while we agree that “Denatured alcohol” is a more accurate description, this proper shipping name applies to domestic shipments only and may not be available to imported shipments of alcohol mixtures containing up to 5% petroleum products.
DGAC, in its comments to the HM–219 NPRM, agreed with Shell Chemicals and stated that:
[I]n North America, international shipments of gasoline/ethanol mixtures are predominately between the US and Canada by either highway or rail. Canada does not permit the use of UN1987 in the manner permitted by Special Provision 172. Shipments where UN1987 is used for ethanol/gasoline mixtures face frustrations when moving into Canada, requiring placards to be changed to comply with Canadian regulations.
DGAC stated that the full range of gasoline and ethanol concentrations is covered by UN1203 and UN3475, making special provision 172 unnecessary. We agree that the full range of gasoline and ethanol concentrations can be covered by UN1203 and UN3475. However, when the regulations were changed to incorporate UN3475, and the number of shipments and types of gasoline/ethanol blends increased in 2008, stakeholders (including industry, emergency responders, and local, state and Federal government entities) made it apparent that there was a need for that special provision. Special provision 172 was established in response to concerns expressed by stakeholders for the safety of emergency responders. The Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) directs emergency responders to Guide 128 for ID number 1993, and recommends “regular foam” to fight large fires. Guide 127 for ID number 1987 recommends “alcohol-resistant foam.” Special provision 172, as provided in the entries for “Denatured Alcohol, NA 1987” and “Alcohols, n.o.s., UN 1987,” allows solutions of alcohol and petroleum products to be described as either “Denatured Alcohol” or “Alcohols, n.o.s.,” provided the solution contains no more than 5% petroleum products, and alerts emergency responders as to the type of foam needed to extinguish a fire. For these reasons, in the HM–219 final rule we amended the HMT by removing the listing for “Gasohol, gasoline mixed with ethyl alcohol, with not more than 10% alcohol,” we retained Special provision 172, and we revised § 172.336 to remove all references to “Gasohol” and to add a table to more clearly indicate hazard communication requirements for compartmented cargo tanks, tank cars, or cargo tanks containing these fuels.
On April 3, 2013, DGAC appealed the retention of special provision 172 and requested that we provide a one-year effective date for the removal of the listing in the HMT for “Gasohol.” DGAC reasoned that special provision 172 should be removed because Canada no longer recognizes it, and that special provision 330 in the UN Model Regulations, which closely resembled special provision 172, was removed in the 14th edition.
With respect to extending the effective date to one year from publication of final rule HM–219 for the removal of the listing for “Gasohol” in the HMT, this is already authorized in § 172.101(l). By operation of law, packages filled prior to the effective date of the amendment may be shipped; and stocks of preprinted shipping papers and package markings to be used, in the manner previously authorized, until depleted or for a one-year period, subsequent to the effective date of the amendment, whichever is less. As stakeholders already have one year to diminish their supplies, it is not necessary for us to extend the effective date for the removal of Gasohol in this final rule.
Regarding special provision 172, it is important to note that we did not propose its removal in the NPRM. While DGAC commented to our intent to retain special provision 172 citing reasons why it should be removed, we disagreed with DGAC in the HM–219 final rule. Although special provision 330 was removed from the UN Model Regulations, we believe that domestically it provides emergency responders with accurate and important response guidance. Furthermore, because we did not propose the removal of special provision 172 in the HM–219 NPRM, we cannot remove it in this final rule without providing public notice and the opportunity for all interested stakeholders to comment. For these reasons we are retaining special provision 172 in this final rule.
PHMSA responded to a petition for rulemaking by gh Package & Product, Testing and Consulting, Inc. (PPTC), (P–1479), which requested that we consider amending the HMR to indicate that an entity performing continued packaging certification on a UN certification packaging is not allowed to use the original manufacturer's or third party laboratory's mark unless authorized by the manufacturer or third-party laboratory. PPTC also requested we amend the HMR to provide that packaging test reports be kept for a limited time instead of the current requirement of “until the packaging is no longer manufactured.”
Regarding the manufacturer's or third party tester's mark, PPTC stated that its third-party laboratory performed design qualification testing of a manufacturer's packaging at least three times, and the packaging failed each time. Eleven years after PPTC had tested the packaging, it learned that the packaging that had failed in its laboratory was still being manufactured and that PPTC's third-party laboratory symbol was being used on the packaging as the packaging tester's mark without permission. PPTC is of the opinion that the language in § 178.3 is unclear because it enables anyone to use the manufacturer's mark, which could expose the original third-party test laboratory to potential liability for defective packaging and other packaging violations.
Section 178.3 provides the person who is certifying compliance of a packaging with the option of marking the packaging with a symbol, rather than the company name and address, provided that the symbol is registered with PHMSA's Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. While it is implied that the symbol being used is that of the person who has registered the symbol, it is not explicit. PPTC has indicated that since the regulations do not specify who is authorized to use the mark, some third-party retesters that did not initially certify the packaging are continuing to use the original third-party laboratory's symbol to certify compliance. While the symbol is associated with the original manufacturer or third-party laboratory,
In the HM–219 NPRM, we proposed to revise § 178.3(a)(2) to clarify that the required marking must identify the person who is certifying that the packaging has passed either the periodic retest or the design qualification test. We further proposed that, unless authorized in writing by the holder of the symbol, symbols must represent either the packaging manufacturer or the approval agency responsible for providing the most recent certification for the packaging through design certification testing or periodic retesting, as applicable.
DGAC disagreed with the proposed changes stating that they would have the effect of replacing, in the UN performance packaging marking, the mark of the person who performed the design qualification tests with the mark of the person who performed the most recent periodic retest. DGAC stated that “periodic retesting does not necessarily confirm compliance with all requirements applicable to a UN design type (e.g., requirements in §§ 178.504–523).” We are aware of the differences between design qualification and periodic retesting, and understand that under the UN Model Regulations the manufacturer's marking is intended to signify the entity responsible for the design qualification test. Our intent is to ensure that under the HMR, the marking on the packaging is traceable to the entity responsible for certifying the packaging—whether that certification is signifying that the packaging passed the design qualification test or the periodic retest. Currently, the HMR differ from the UN Model Regulations with respect to the testing of packagings because the UN Model Regulations only require a design test and do not require periodic retesting of packagings. For this reason, the UN Model Regulations do not have to account for the potential of unauthorized use of a third-party laboratory's symbol, nor do they have to distinguish what the mark signifies. In Chapter 6.1, paragraph 6.1.3 of the UN Recommendations, with respect to marking, Note 1 states that: “The marking indicates that the packaging which bears it corresponds to a successfully tested design type and that it complies with the requirements of this Chapter . . .”; whereas the HMR in § 178.503(a)(8) states: “A packaging conforming to a UN standard must be marked as follows: [with] the name and address or symbol of the manufacturer or the approval agency certifying compliance with subpart L and subpart M of this part.” Subpart M includes both design type and periodic retesting.
Further, DGAC states that:
[A] consequence of the proposed changes is that the UN package marking for a given design type would have to be changed at least every year in the case of single or composite packagings and every two years in the case of combination packagings. It does not appear that PHMSA has considered the costs of changing these package markings at this frequency in its regulatory evaluation. At a minimum, such marking changes could result in considerable administrative costs. In addition, we question whether these changes would provide a meaningful enhancement to safety.
It is our intent that the certification mark indicated on a packaging is that of the person manufacturing the packaging, or testing the packaging, on behalf of the manufacturer. We anticipated the concerns raised by DGAC and as such, provided an allowance for the use of the mark of the person who performed the design qualification tests if authorized in writing by the holder of the mark. An additional option is that the mark is representative of the person who physically manufactured the packaging, in which case, it would not change based on who conducts the design testing or retesting.
For these reasons, we adopted the changes proposed regarding the packaging certifier's mark in the HM–219 final rule and revised § 178.3 to indicate that the required marking must identify the person who is certifying that the packaging meets the applicable UN Standard. Further, for continued certification of the packaging through periodic retesting, the marking must identify the person who certifies that the packaging continues to meet the applicable UN Standard.
In an appeal dated March 27, 2013, DGAC contends that:
[T]he new requirement introduces certain inconsistencies within the HMR, the costs of the change could be significant, and that PHMSA has provided insufficient time to provide for orderly implementation. In addition, considering the lack of discussion, it would appear that PHMSA did not consider the change under requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Contrary to PHMSA's assertion that the change is a clarification, it is a fundamental change to the regulations.
DGAC also asserts that the effective date of the HM–219 final rule does not provide enough time for users of another entity's mark to request permission to use the mark. We believe that the allowances provided by the final rule, such as requesting permission from the person who conducted the design testing, using the mark of the person who physically manufactured the packaging, or using its own mark, are sufficient and timely options.
DGAC further asserts:
Since PHMSA did not discuss the change under the preamble heading “F. Paperwork Reduction Act”, it is assumed that PHMSA's analysis did not account for the increased information collection required due to this change. Under 5 CFR § 1320.3(c)(1) an
Regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), we have not revised the marking requirements. We have simply clarified in the regulations that a person may not use the mark of the person who performed the design qualification testing when marking for a periodic retest without the written permission of the person who performed the design qualification test. We see no difference in the paperwork burden between the current regulations and the changes made under the HM–219 final rule. To underscore this point, we note that the requirements prior to the publication of the HM–219 final rule allowed the person that performed the periodic retest to mark the packaging with its mark. Specifically, for non-bulk packaging, § 178.503(e)(8) requires that the packaging be marked with the name and address or symbol of the manufacturer or the approval agency certifying compliance with Subparts L and M of Part 178. Design qualification testing and periodic retesting requirements are provided in Subpart M of Part 178. The intent of the periodic retest is to ensure that each packaging produced by the manufacturer is capable of passing the design qualification tests.
Therefore, we have not amended the marking requirements. Rather, we have merely clarified that a person who retests and marks a packaging may use its own mark, but may not use the mark of another testing entity without the written permission of that entity. For these reasons, we are retaining the revisions made in the HM–219 final rule to § 178.3(a)(2) and are not extending
The record retention requirements for packaging testing in sections 178.601(l), 178.801(l), and 178.955(i), indicate that the test report must be maintained at each location where the packaging is manufactured and each location where the design qualification tests are conducted for as long as the packaging is produced and for at least two years thereafter. As described in PPTC's petition, the original packaging manufacturer or third-party packaging testing laboratory is often not aware that a packaging is still being made, but is required to retain records until the packaging is no longer made. PPTC contends that a third-party laboratory should not be responsible for providing information on packaging that it has no control or approval over.
In the HM–219 NPRM, we proposed to revise § 178.601(l), which specifies recordkeeping requirements for testing non-bulk packaging; § 178.801(l), which specifies recordkeeping requirements for testing Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs); and § 178.955(i), which specifies recordkeeping requirements for testing large packagings, to indicate that records must be maintained by:
• The manufacturer for as long as the packaging is made and two years thereafter;
• The person performing the design testing until the next periodic retest is successfully performed, a new test report is produced, and five years thereafter; and
• The person performing the periodic retest until the next periodic retest is successfully performed and a new test report produced.
In its comments to the HM–219 NPRM, DGAC opposed this change, stating that:
PHMSA may alter the required frequency based on an approval and, in the case of IBCs and Large packagings, PHMSA may substitute a quality control program for required periodic retesting (see § 178.801(e)(2)). As such, the periodic retest date is not a date certain, raising the question of how the person who conducted the design qualification tests can know the actual time period for retaining records. If PHMSA maintains the proposed record retention requirements in some form, we recommend the retention period be tied to the date of the design qualification testing rather than the date of periodic retesting. When the required packaging retest frequency is based on an approval and, in the case of IBCs and Large packagings, a quality control program is substituted for required periodic retesting, records would have to be maintained predicated on the specifications of each approval.
We agreed with DGAC that retest dates may vary depending on a variety of factors (e.g. the manufacturer may choose a higher frequency than required, PHMSA may alter the required frequency based on an approval and, in the case of IBCs and large packagings, PHMSA may substitute a quality control program for required periodic retesting). In the HM–219 final rule, we added the word “required” in conjunction with the design qualification and periodic retesting recordkeeping requirements to clarify that records of the retest must be kept only for the specified duration after the HMR-required test is performed successfully. Specifically, we revised the language proposed in the HM–219 NPRM in § 178.601(l), which specified recordkeeping requirements for testing non-bulk packaging; § 178.801(l), which specified recordkeeping requirements for testing IBCs; and § 178.955(i), which specified recordkeeping requirements for testing large packagings, to indicate that records are maintained until the next
In an appeal dated March 28, 2013, RIPA asked that we reconsider the record retention requirement changes to § 178.601(l), for testing non-bulk packaging; § 178.801(l), for testing IBCs; and § 178.955(i) for large packagings. RIPA states:
As other commentators have pointed out, design type tests and periodic retests are not necessarily equivalent, e.g. paper or fiberboard. We wonder why PHMSA would allow the original design type test to disappear at any time during the production life of a packaging.
Further, RIPA suggests that instead of the recordkeeping requirements published in HM–219 final rule, the following recordkeeping requirements should apply:
The amendment to the recordkeeping requirements for packaging testing was intended to limit the record retention time period for the person performing the design type test. We did this because the third-party packaging testing laboratory is often not aware that a packaging is still being made. We provided that the design test results are kept until the next required periodic retest is successfully performed, a new test report produced, and five years
We agree with RIPA regarding its suggested revisions to the recordkeeping requirement for persons performing the design testing, but we also will clarify in this final rule that the recordkeeping requirements for combination packagings and packagings intended for infectious substances is seven years. Instead of requiring periodic retesters to keep records until the next required periodic retest is successfully performed and a new test report produced, we are clarifying that the duration the records must be kept are one year after the test has been successfully performed for single or composite packagings and two years after the test has been successfully performed for combination packagings or packagings intended for infectious substances. In its appeal to the HM–219 final rule, RIPA questions why PHMSA would allow the original design type test to disappear. We have always intended for the manufacturer to retain all test records, including the design qualification and all periodic retest. In this final rule we are revising the tables in §§ 178.601(l), 178.801(l) and 178.955(i) as follows:
In this final rule, we are making editorial corrections and clarifying amendments to sections that were amended by the final rules HM–215K and HM–215L both published January 7, 2013; HM–218G published March 11, 2013; and HM–219 published March 7, 2013, for consistency with grammatical conventions and for consistency with similar provisions within the HMR. We are also making conforming amendments to sections in the HMR affected by these four final rules. The clarifying or conforming amendments in this final rule do not impose new requirements but rather are intended to provide a better understanding of the requirements adopted in the final rules. The corrections and amendments are as follows:
This section lists material incorporated by reference into the HMR. In the January 7, 2013 final rule PHMSA–2012–0027 (HM–215L), we incorporated UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria, fifth revised edition, Amendment 1 (2011) (Manual of Tests and Criteria), which was intended to supplement UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria, fifth revised edition (2009), however we replaced the reference to the fifth revised edition (2009) with the supplement (Amendment 1) only. In this final rule, we are revising § 171.7(dd) by adding UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria, fifth revised edition (2009).
This section defines terms generally used throughout the HMR that have broad or multi-modal applicability. In the January 7, 2013 final rule PHMSA–2012–0027 (HM–215L), we introduced the definition
This section prescribes requirements for specific materials and packagings transported under the ICAO TI, IMDG, Transport Canada TDG Regulations or the IAEA Regulations. In paragraph (b)(8), the Organic Peroxide Table incorrectly referenced as § 173.225(b) and should be § 173.225(c). In this rule, we are correcting this error.
This section prescribes the purpose and instructions for use of the § 172.102 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT). In the January 7, 2013 final rule PHMSA–2012–0027 (HM–215L), we added “Chemical under pressure, n.o.s.” entries to the HMT to address shipments of liquids or solids (e.g., adhesives, coatings, and cleaners) combined with a gas or gas mixtures utilized to expel the contents from pressure vessels. We authorized UN Portable Tanks by referencing 173.313 in Column (8C) bulk packaging authorizations, but inadvertently failed to authorize the use of DOT specification tanks. We are adding “315” to Column (8C) for the “Chemical under pressure, n.o.s.” entries authorizing use of DOT specification tanks.
In the January 7, 2013 final rule PHMSA–2012–0027 (HM–215L), we attempted to remove an erroneous entry for “Aerosols, poison,
In the January 19, 2011 final rule (PHMSA–2009–0126 [HM–215K]), PHMSA revised several organometallic substance entries in the HMT by adding
PHMSA identified a typographical error as a result of revisions made in the HM–219 final rule. In the HMT, the listing for “self-reactive solid type E” showed an incorrect ID number in Column (4), and incorrect quantity limitations in Columns (9A) and (9B). Upon publication of the HM–219 NPRM, PHMSA did not receive any comment on the unintended typographical errors in the HMT and, therefore, PHMSA adopted the changes as proposed in the final rule. PHMSA acknowledges that these typographical errors in HM–219 were not intended. In addition, an error occurred during publishing that caused in the listing for “Self-reactive solid type E” to be removed and the listing for “Self-reactive solid type F” to be duplicated. In this final rule, we are removing the duplicate listing for “Self-reactive solid type F” and correcting the entry in the HMT for “Self-reactive solid type E,” to indicate “UN3228” in Column (4) and “10 kg” in Column (9A) and “25 kg” in Column (9B) by re-adding the listing that was removed in error.
We are making a number of editorial corrections to several entries in the HMT. The editorial corrections are as follows:
For the entry “Sulfuric acid, fuming
• For the entry “Cartridges power device
• For the entry for “Self-reactive solid type E,” the Identification Number in column (4) is revised to read “UN3228.”
• For the entry “Powder, smokeless, UN0509”, the Packing Group in Column (5) is corrected to read “II.”
• For the entry “Propellant, solid, UN0501”, the Packing Group in Column (5) is corrected to read “II.”
For the entry “Cartridges for weapons, blank
• For the entry “Cartridges for weapons, inert projectile
• For the entry “Consumer commodity, ORM–D,” special provision 222 is added in Column (7) for consistency with the other ORM–D entries in the HMT.
• For the entries “Substances, explosive, n.o.s.,” assigned to UN numbers UN0357, UN0358, and UN0359, special provision 101 is added in Column (7) as intended and mentioned in the preamble to the HM–215L final rule.
• For the entry “Other regulated substances, liquid, n.o.s.,” special provision A189 is added in Column (7) as indicated by the preamble discussion in the HM–215L final rule to help direct shippers to the most appropriate entry for shipments of formaldehyde solutions containing varying amounts of formaldehyde.
• For the entry “Cartridges, power device, UN0323,” the Packaging Exception in Column (8A) is corrected to read “63.”
• For the “Chemical under pressure, n.o.s.” entries, the packaging authorization “315” is added to Column (8C) to authorize use of DOT specification tanks in addition to UN portable tanks.
• For the entry “Consumer commodity, ORM–D,” the Quantity Limitation in Column (9B) is revised to read “Forbidden,” consistent with the other ORM–D entries in the HMT.
• For the entry for “Powder, smokeless, 1.4C,” the Quantity Limitation in Column (9B) is revised to read “75kg.”
• For the entry for “Self-reactive solid type E,” the Quantity Limitation in Column (9) is revised to read “10 kg” in column (9A) and “25 kg” in Column (9B).
• For the entry “Model rocket motor, NA0276,” the Vessel Stowage in Column (10) is corrected to read “02” in Column (10A) and “25” in Column (10B).
• For the entry “Model rocket motor, UN0323,” the Vessel Stowage in Column (10) is corrected to read “01” in Column (10A) and “25” in Column (10B).
• Corrections are made to the following entries in Column (10A) of the HMT for Vessel Stowage Location codes by adding a “0” preceding a single digit entry; for example, “1” is corrected to read “01”:
○ Revised to read “01”: NA0337, UN0173, UN0174, UN0193, UN0345, UN0373, UN0376, UN0481, UN0506, UN0507;
○ Revised to read “02”: UN0191, UN0197, UN0306, UN0320, UN0344, UN0347, UN0370, UN0407, UN0425, UN0435, UN0438, UN0453, UN0479, UN0480, UN0485, UN0493, UN0501, UN0502, UN0505;
○ Revised to read “03”: UN0192, UN0194, UN0195, UN0196, UN0212, UN0238, UN0240, UN0313, UN0319, UN0424, UN0434, UN0476, UN0478, UN0482, UN0487, UN0492;
○ Revised to read “04”: UN0153, UN0154, UN0155, UN0159, UN0160, UN0161, UN0168, UN0169, UN0181, UN0182, UN0183, UN0186, UN0207, UN0208, UN0209, UN0213, UN0214, UN0215, UN0216, UN0217, UN0218, UN0219, UN0220, UN0221, UN0234, UN0235, UN0236, UN0280, UN0281, UN0286, UN0287, UN0329, UN0346, UN0374, UN0375, UN0386, UN0387, UN0388, UN0389, UN0390, UN0391, UN0394, UN0433, UN0436, UN0437, UN0451, UN0474, UN0475, UN0477, UN0495, UN0497, UN0498, UN0499, UN0504;
○ Revised to read “05”: UN0167, UN0180, UN0190, UN0204, UN0250, UN0295, UN0296, UN0322, UN0324, UN0330, UN0357, UN0358, UN0359, UN0369, UN0371, UN0377, UN0378, UN0395, UN0396, UN0397, UN0398, UN0426, UN0427, UN0449, UN0450, UN0473.
Section 172.102 sets forth the text of the special provisions referenced in the HMT. PHMSA revised special provision
This section establishes requirements for shipping descriptions on shipping papers. As part of the shipping description requirements, in many situations a net quantity or gross mass of the hazardous materials transported must be shown. In the January 7, 2013 final rule (HM–215L) we revised § 172.202 by adding a new paragraph (a)(6)(vii) to harmonize with the ICAO TI as to whether, for limited quantities, the net quantity or gross mass is required to be shown on the shipping document, including when different hazardous materials are packed together in the same outer packaging. In the final rule, we associated this requirement with Column (9) of the HMT. After receiving several comments, and upon further review, in this final rule we are revising § 172.202(a)(6)(vii) to associate this requirement for limited quantities with column 4 of the § 173.27 Table 3, as this is a better alignment with the ICAO TI. Specifically, we are revising paragraph (a)(6)(vii) to state that for hazardous materials in limited quantities, the total net quantity per package must be shown unless a gross mass is indicated in column 4 of § 173.27 Table 3, in which case the total gross mass per package must be shown. Where different hazardous materials in limited quantities are packed together in the same outer packaging, when a gross mass is indicated column 4 of the § 173.27 Table 3, the net quantity of each hazardous material must be shown in addition to the gross mass of the completed package.
Section 172.301 prescribes the general marking requirements for non-bulk packagings. In the HM–215L final rule, § 172.301(a)(1)(i) was amended with a minor grammatical error stating “paragraph this” instead of “this paragraph.” In this final rule, we are correcting this grammatical error.
Section 172.315 prescribes the requirements applicable to marking packages of limited quantity material. In the section-by-section review in the January 7, 2013 final rule (HM–215K) we stated our intent to authorize continued use of the alternative limited quantity marking (i.e., square-on-point and Identification Number) prescribed in § 172.315(d), in effect on October 1, 2010, until December 31, 2015. However, an incorrect date was published in the regulatory text. In this document, we are authorizing use of the alternative limited quantity marking prescribed in § 172.315(d) until December 31, 2015.
Section 172.316 prescribes the marking requirements for packages of ORM–D material. In this final rule, we are revising paragraph (a) for clarity as the reclassification to ORM–D–AIR is no longer authorized as of January 1, 2013.
Section 172.336 sets forth exceptions to the identification number marking requirements on various tanks. In the HM–219 final rule, we removed references to Gasohol in § 172.336 and established a table to better indicate where identification marks should be displayed on each tank type. In so doing, we identified that the requirements for nurse tanks were unclear. In this final rule, we are clarifying the identification number marking requirements for nurse tanks to state that they are not required on one end of nurse tanks if that end contains valves, fittings, regulators or gauges when those appurtenances prevent the markings and placard from being properly placed and visible as set forth in § 173.315(m).
Section 173.6 prescribes exceptions from certain requirements of the HMR for the transportation of hazardous materials defined as materials of trade (MOTS) when transported by motor vehicle. In the January 7, 2013 final rule (HM–215K), we adopted revisions to the paragraph (d) exceptions that reflect the phase-out of the ORM–D system on December 31, 2020, and applied the exception provided ORM–D material to hazardous materials authorized for transportation as a limited quantity under Subparts C through E and Subpart G of Part 173 of the HMR. We are removing, in response to public comment received subsequent to the issuance of the January 7, 2013 final rule (HM–215K), the reference to limited quantities prepared in accordance with § 173.27 in § 173.6(a)(6). MOTS is a highway-transport-only exception.
Section 173.22 prescribes various shipper responsibilities. In this final rule, the word “filed” in the last sentence of paragraph (a)(4)(ii) is corrected to read “filled.” Additionally, paragraph (a)(4)(iii) is revised for clarity by specifying the duration of record retention for compliance with Selective Testing Variation 1 as prescribed in § 178.601(g)(1).
Section 173.24 prescribes the general requirements for packagings and packages. In this final rule, we are revising paragraph (i) for editorial purposes. Currently, except as provided in Subpart C of part 171 of this Subchapter, packages offered or intended for transportation by aircraft must conform to the general requirements for transportation by aircraft in § 173.27. This would include packages of consumer commodities prepared in accordance with § 173.167. This was never intended to be the case as the requirements of § 173.167 are meant to be stand-alone as they are in Packing Instruction Y963 of the ICAO TI.
Section 173.25 prescribes requirements for the transportation of authorized packages in overpacks used for protection or convenience of handling or to consolidate packages. In this final rule, paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) are revised by removing the italicized font in each heading for consistency within the section and adding an em dash after each heading.
Section 173.27 prescribes the general requirements for transportation by aircraft. In this final rule, we are revising the Class 8 list of articles and substances not authorized limited quantity status in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(F) by adding Identification Number
Section 173.62 prescribes the specific packaging requirements for explosives. In final rule published on January 7, 2013 (HM–215L), we revised various packaging provisions in the “Table of Packing Methods” in this section to align with changes adopted in the 17th Revised Edition of the UN Model Regulations. The revisions to the authorized packaging methods provided greater flexibility when packaging explosives while retaining an appropriate level of safety. These changes included, but were not limited to, permitting various explosives to be transported in closed head drums in addition to the already permitted removable head drums and adding the option to utilize wooden inner and intermediate packagings in various packaging provisions. We revised § 173.62(c), Table of Packing Methods, packing instruction 130, to include additional options for outer packagings. Specifically, the use of boxes and drums constructed of metal other than steel or aluminum (4N) and the use of closed head drums in addition to the already permitted removable head drums.
In a subsequent final rule published on March 11, 2013, under Docket No. PHMSA 2011–0138 (HM–218G), entitled “Hazardous Materials; Miscellaneous Amendments (RRR),” we again revised § 173.62(c), Table of Packing Methods, packing instruction 130 to add the following language that was inadvertently removed from the first column of the packing instruction:
2. Subject to approval by the Associate Administrator, large explosive articles, as part of their operational safety and suitability tests, subjected to testing that meets the intentions of Test Series 4 of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria with successful test results, may be offered for transportation in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.
When reinstating the removed language in the HM–218G final rule, we inadvertently removed the additional options for outer packagings authorized in the packing instruction 130 in the HM–215L final rule. We did not intend to remove these outer packagings from packing instruction 130 and unnecessarily limit the transport of large explosive articles. Therefore, we are correcting § 173.62(c), Table of Packing Methods, packing instruction 130, to reinstate the additional options for outer packagings inadvertently removed from the third column of packing instruction 130.
In addition to the correction to packing instruction 130, the HM–215L final rule also revised packing instruction 112(b). The outer packaging authorization was inadvertently changed from “bags” to “boxes.” As such, we are revising packing instruction 112(b) by correcting the outer packaging authorization to “bags.”
Section 173.63 details packaging exceptions for specific types of low hazard explosive materials including certain detonators, small arms ammunition, cartridges power device and detonating cord. We received an appeal to the HM–215L rulemaking from SAAMI requesting multiple changes to § 173.63.
SAAMI requested clarifying edits to § 173.63(b) to ensure provisions in place for ORM–D shipments of “Cartridges, power device (
Section 173.144 defines “Other Regulated Materials, ORM–D.” We are amending the definition to include “Cartridges, power device
Section 173.150 provides exceptions from the HMR for certain Class 3 flammable liquid material. Specifically, § 173.150(d) provides exceptions for alcoholic beverages for all modes of transport. Generally, the HMR is harmonized with the ICAO TI with regard to the exceptions provided for alcoholic beverages shipped by passenger- carrying and cargo-only aircraft. However, prior to the publication of the HM–218G final rule, for cargo-only aircraft, the HMR did not align with the ICAO TI. This lack of harmonization led to frustration of shipments of these types of materials in international air transport.
To address this issue, we proposed in the HM–218G NPRM, to revise the exceptions in § 173.150(d) to harmonize the alcoholic beverages exception via aircraft with the requirements in the ICAO TI, and to restructure the exceptions in § 173.150(d) to provide clarity on the requirements for the transport of alcoholic beverages by each mode of transport including passenger-carrying and cargo-only aircraft.
We did not receive any negative comments on this proposed change and one comment suggesting revised regulatory text to promote clarity. In a subsequent HM–218G final rule, we adopted the revised § 173.150(d)(2) to harmonize the HMR with the ICAO TI for the air transportation of alcoholic beverages.
Upon further review of the regulatory language adopted in the HM–218G final rule, we identified an unintended error in need of correction. Specifically, §§ 173.150(d)(2)(ii) and 173.150(d)(2)(iii) use the language “but less than 70% alcohol by volume” when describing the upper limit of the exception. This implies that beverages containing exactly 70% alcohol by volume would not be permitted to use this exception. Section 175.10(a)(4)(ii) and in ICAO TI, Special Provision A9 use the language “not more than 70 per cent alcohol by volume” permitting alcohols containing exactly 70% alcohol by volume to use the exception. While these two phrases seem similar, “but less than 70% alcohol by volume” adopted in the HM–218G final rule is unintentionally more stringent, and is inconsistent with the ICAO TI or inconsistent and § 175.10(a)(4)(ii). Therefore, we are revising §§ 173.150(d)(2)(ii) and 173.150(d)(2)(iii) by replacing the phrase “but less than 70% alcohol by volume” with the phrase “not more than 70 per cent alcohol by volume.” This will ensure consistency within the HMR and harmonize fully the HMR and ICAO TI with regard to the alcoholic beverages exception.
Section 173.156 prescribes exceptions for limited quantity and ORM material. In this final rule, we are correcting an error made to paragraph (b)(1) in the January 7, 2013 HM–215K final rule. In that paragraph, we except certain shipments from the limited quantity and
This section prescribes the requirements for polyester resin kits. In both January 7, 2013 final rules, HM–215K and HM–215L, revisions were made to § 173.165 inadvertently resulting in duplicate paragraphs concerning consumer commodities and omitting the HM–215L paragraph (c), limited quantities. We are revising § 173.165 by removing the duplicate paragraph concerning commodities and replacing paragraph (c) with the limited quantity language from the HM–215L final rule.
Section 173.167 prescribes the requirements for consumer commodities intended for air transportation. In this final rule, we are revising paragraph (a) for editorial purposes. Currently, except as provided in Subpart C of Part 171 of this Subchapter, packages offered or intended for transportation by aircraft must conform to the general requirements for transportation by aircraft in § 173.27. This would include packages of consumer commodities prepared in accordance with § 173.167. This was never intended to be the case. The requirements of § 173.167 are meant to be stand-alone, as they are in Packing Instruction Y963 of the ICAO TI.
Section 173.171 provides exceptions for Smokeless powder for small arms that has been classed as an explosive and reclassed as a Division 4.1 for domestic transportation by motor vehicle, rail car, vessel, or cargo-only aircraft, subject to certain conditions. In the HM–219 final rule, we revised the introductory paragraph of § 173.171 to read: “Powders that have been classed in Division 1.3 or Division 1.4C may be reclassed in Division 4.1, for domestic transportation by motor vehicle, rail car, vessel, or cargo-only aircraft, subject to the following conditions”; we revised § 173.171(a) to read: “Powders that have been approved as Division 1.3C or Division 1.4C may be reclassed to Division 4.1 in accordance with §§ 173.56 and 173.58 of this part”; we revised § 173.171 (c) to read: “Only combination packagings with inner packagings not exceeding 3.6 kg (8 pounds) net mass and outer packaging of UN 4G fiberboard boxes meeting the Packing Group I standards are authorized. Inner packagings must be arranged and protected so as to prevent simultaneous ignition of the contents. The complete package must be of the same type that has been examined as required in § 173.56 of this part”; and we revised § 173.171(d) to read: “The net weight of smokeless powder in any one box (one package) must not exceed 7.3 kg (16 pounds).” In response to SAAMI's appeal to HM–219, in this final rule we are revising the introductory language in § 173.171 to read: “Smokeless powder for small arms which has been classed in Division 1.3 or Division 1.4 may be reclassed in Division 4.1, for domestic transportation by motor vehicle, rail car, vessel, or cargo-only aircraft, subject to the following conditions.”
We are also reestablishing §§ 173.171(c) and 173.171(d) to read as they did before the amendments of HM–219 were adopted. As the revisions to the wording to § 173.171(a) in HM–219 were designed to provide relief for shippers of smokeless powder, in that they would not be required to retest powders already classed as Division 1.3C or 1.4C, we are retaining the wording as shown in the HM–219 final rule for § 173.171(a).
This section was added in the January 7, 2013 HM–215L final rule and prescribes the requirements for capacitors. In the ICAO TI, capacitors, UN3499, are assigned to Packing Instruction 971 which provides, “The capacitor or, when fitted in a module, the module must be fitted with a metal strap connecting the terminals.” This requirement in Packing Instruction 971 differs from the requirement adopted in Special Provision A186 of the ICAO TI assigned to UN3499 which provides, “When a capacitor's energy storage capacity is less than or equal to 10 Wh or when the energy storage capacity of each capacitor in a module is less than or equal to 10 Wh, the capacitor or module shall be protected against short circuit or be fitted with a metal strap connecting the terminals.” In the January 7, 2013 HM–215L final rule, in § 173.176, for transportation by air, we inadvertently considered only the short circuit protection requirement contained in Packing Instruction 971 and did not account for the Special Provision A186 short circuit requirement for capacitors or capacitors in a module with an energy storage capacity less than or equal to 10 Wh. In their appeals, DGAC and Kilofarad International brought this inconsistency to our attention. We acknowledge this oversight and in this final rule we are revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of § 173.176 by removing the references to “transport by air” to maintain consistency with Special Provision A186 of the ICAO TI.
This section prescribes packaging requirements and certain conditional exceptions for the transport of lithium batteries. As DGAC correctly pointed out in their appeal, we did not include a grandfather provision for cells and batteries of a type that meets the 5th revised edition consistent with previous practice. While this does not change our intent to continue to permit the continued manufacture and transportation of lithium cells and batteries of a type meeting the requirements a previously authorized edition of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, we agree this may result in confusion and unnecessary retesting of previously validated designs. We are revising § 173.185 by clarifying that, irrespective of the January 1, 2006 date in § 173.185(a)(1), newly manufactured cells and batteries of a type successfully tested to the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria 3rd edition amendment 1 or a later edition may be transported without the need for the cell or battery type to be retested and that cells and batteries already distributed and tested to a previous edition of the Manual may continue to be transported.
Section 173.225 prescribes the packaging requirements and other provisions for organic peroxides. Paragraph (c) of this section contains and describes the organic peroxide table and how specific organic peroxides are to be transported. In addition, paragraph (e) contains a separate table that prescribes the packaging requirements for organic peroxides packaged in IBCs.
In the HM–215L final rule, we made several changes to the § 173.225(c) Organic Peroxide Table. The instruction to the
In the HM–215L final rule, we made several changes to the § 173.225(e) Organic Peroxide IBC Table. The instruction to the
Section 173.230 prescribes the transport requirements for fuel cell cartridges containing hazardous material. In this final rule, we are revising § 173.230(f)(3) to correct a minor grammatical error by removing the duplicative instance of the word “to”, published in the HM–215L final rule.
Section 173.301b provides additional general requirements for shipment of UN pressure receptacles. We are revising § 173.301b(d)(1) to correct a minor grammatical error in the HM–215L final rule by replacing a period with a semicolon.
Section 175.10 specifies the conditions for which passengers, crew members, or an operator may carry hazardous materials aboard an aircraft. We are correcting several editorial errors published in the HM–215L final rule. Paragraph (a)(15)(v)(C) is amended to correctly reference Special Provision 130. In paragraphs (a)(19)(vii) and (a)(19)(viii) the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) reference standard is corrected. Paragraph (a)(21) is revised to correct the numbering sequence. Paragraph (a)(24) is amended from 2.8 g to correctly state “equivalent to a 28 g carbon dioxide cartridge,” consistent with the ICAO TI.
Section 175.25 prescribes the notification that operators must provide to passengers regarding restrictions on the types of hazardous material they may or may not carry aboard an aircraft on their person or in checked or carry-on baggage. The January 19, 2011 HM–215K final rule revised provisions in § 175.25 applicable to notification and acknowledgement of the types of hazardous materials that a passenger may or may not carry aboard an aircraft by updating the ticketing and flight check-in provisions of the HMR based on current technologies used to perform such functions.
Subsequent to issuance of the final rule, PHMSA and FAA received several administrative appeals, and, at an August 16, 2012 public meeting, received written and oral comments requesting additional time for affected entities to implement the new provisions in a more effective and cooperative manner. PHMSA and FAA agreed that a delay in the compliance date of the revised § 175.25 was warranted, particularly if a delay supported the implementation of more effective methods for increasing passenger awareness of, and compliance with, the HMR. Therefore, PHMSA and FAA provided notification of extending the compliance date for all new provisions adopted in the January 19, 2011 final rule until January 1, 2015.
In this final rule, PHMSA is revising paragraphs (b) and (c) by removing the first sentence in each paragraph for editorial purposes and clarity as the two sentences are redundant. Because the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are not mutually exclusive, the two sentences are extraneous and not necessary. Lastly, existing paragraph (c)(2) is redesignated as new paragraph (d) for clarity.
We want to emphasize these clarifications are for editorial purposes only and do not impose any new requirements. Further, such clarifications do not remove or relax any current or future § 175.25 regulatory requirements.
Section 175.75 prescribes quantity limitation and cargo location requirements for hazardous materials carried aboard passenger-carrying and cargo-only aircraft. In this final rule, we are amending the list of materials that are excepted from the inaccessible loading restrictions in paragraphs (c), (d), and note 1 of the table in paragraph (f) to include articles with Identification Numbers UN0012, UN0014, and UN0055, that are properly prepared under the provisions prescribed in § 173.63(b). These amendments are in response to an administrative appeal submitted by SAAMI. In its appeal, SAAMI requested clarification to ensure that shipments of these three commodities, properly prepared in accordance with the requirements of § 173.63(b), are eligible for relief from the loading limits in § 175.75. It was never our intent to subject these articles that have historically received relief from the accessibility requirements of § 175.75 to these requirements. An article with Identification Numbers UN0012, UN0014, or UN0055, properly packaged and marked in accordance with § 173.63(b), is excepted from the requirements of § 175.75(c) and (e)(1) if it is declared on air transport shipping papers as a limited quantity or not.
In the January 19, 2011 HM–215K final rule, the HMR was amended to align with international standards by revising the notes to the paragraph (f) Quantity and Loading Table that excepted certain cargo-aircraft only packages from the accessible loading restrictions. For example, Note (a) to Note 1 was revised to except cargo-only flammable liquids substances of Class 3, Packing Group III from the accessible loading restrictions unless it was labeled with a corrosive (Class 8) subsidiary risk. However, Note (b) to Note 1 was not revised by excepting a cargo-only toxic liquid substance of Division 6.1 from the accessible loading restrictions unless it was labeled with a subsidiary risk other than flammable liquid (Class 3). As a result, revised Note (a) conflicts with existing Note (b). Therefore, in this final rule, we are revising Note (b) to align with the international standards by clarifying the accessible loading restrictions prescribed in § 175.75(f) do not apply to a cargo-only toxic liquid substance of Division 6.1 unless it is labeled with a subsidiary risk other than flammable liquid (Class 3).
Section 176.905 prescribes specific requirements for motor vehicles or mechanical equipment powered by internal combustion engines that are offered for transportation and transported by vessel. In this final rule, we are correcting a numbering error that occurred in the January 7, 2013 final rule in paragraph (i).
Sections 178.601, 178.801, and 178.955, set forth recordkeeping requirements for packaging manufacturers, design type testers, and periodic retesters. In the HM–219 final rule, we revised the language in § 178.601(l), which specified recordkeeping requirements for testing non-bulk packaging; § 178.801(l), which
This final rule is published under the following statutory authorities:
1. 49 U.S.C. 5103(b) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. This final rule responds to appeals and corrects various errors made during the development of the two January 7, 2013, the March 7, 2013, and the March 11, 2013 final rules and printing process. To this end, as discussed in detail earlier in this preamble, the two January 7, 2013 final rules amended the HMR to more fully align it with the biennial updates of the UN Recommendations, the IMDG Code and the ICAO TI to facilitate the transport of hazardous materials in international commerce.
2. 49 U.S.C. 5120(b) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that, to the extent practicable, regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce are consistent with standards adopted by international authorities. This final rule responds to appeals and corrects errors made during the development of the two January 7, 2013, the March 7, 2013, and the March 11, 2013 final rules and printing process and makes amendments to conform to amendments made in these four final rules.
This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule is not considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). Additionally, E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms E.O. 12866, stressing that, to the extent permitted by law, an agency rulemaking action must be based on benefits that justify its costs, impose the least burden, consider cumulative burdens, maximize benefits, use performance objectives, and assess available alternatives. The revisions adopted in this final rule do not alter the cost-benefit analysis and conclusions contained in the Regulatory Evaluations in the two January 7, 2013 final rules. The Regulatory Evaluations are available for review in the public docket.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not adopt any regulation that: (1) Has substantial direct effects on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; or (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. PHMSA is not aware of any state, local or Indian tribe requirements that would be preempted by correcting editorial errors and making minor regulatory changes. This final rule does not have sufficient federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.
This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not have tribal implications and, does not impose substantial direct compliance costs the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts of final rules on small entities are properly considered.
This final rule imposes no new information collection requirements.
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center generally publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $141.3 million or more, adjusted for inflation, to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4375 requires that Federal agencies consider the consequences of major Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In final rules PHMSA–2009–0126 (HM–
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Under E.O. 13609, agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards to protect the safety of the American public, and we have assessed the effects of this final rule to ensure that it does not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. In fact, the rule is designed to facilitate international trade. Accordingly, this rulemaking is consistent with E.O. 13609 and PHMSA's obligations under the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.
Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Packaging and containers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium.
Air carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Maritime carriers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA is amending 49 CFR Chapter I as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97; Pub. L. 101–410 section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104–134 section 31001.
(dd) * * *
(2) UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria, (Manual of Tests and Criteria), into §§ 172.102; 173.21; 173.56; 173.57; 173.58; 173.60; 173.115; 173.124; 173.125; 173.127; 173.128; 173.137; 173.185; 173.220; part 173, appendix H; 178.274:
(i) Fifth revised edition (2009).
(ii) Fifth revised edition, amendment 1 (2011).
(b) * * *
(8)
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 44701; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
16 This description applies to smokeless powder and other solid propellants that are used as powder for small arms and have been classed as Division 1.3C, 1.4C and Division 4.1 in accordance with § 173.56 of this subchapter.
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
(vii) For hazardous materials in limited quantities, the total net quantity per package must be shown unless a gross mass is indicated in Column 4 of § 173.27 Table 3, in which case the total gross mass per package must be shown. Where different hazardous materials in limited quantities are packed together in the same outer packaging, when a gross mass is indicated Column 4 of § 173.27 Table 3, the net quantity of each hazardous material must be shown in addition to the gross mass of the completed package.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(d)
(a) Each non-bulk packaging containing a material classed as ORM–D must be marked on at least one side or end with the ORM–D designation immediately following or below the proper shipping name of the material. The ORM designation must be placed within a rectangle that is approximately 6.3 mm (0.25 inches) larger on each side than the designation. Until December 31, 2020, the designation ORM–D is for an ORM–D material, as defined in § 173.144, that is packaged in accordance with §§ 173.63(b), 173.150 through 173.156, and 173.306.
(c) Identification Numbers are not required:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
(a) * * *
(6) A limited quantity package prepared in accordance with §§ 173.63(b), 173.150, 173.151(b) and (c), 173.152, 173.153, 173.154, 173.155, 173.161, 173.165, 173.167, 173.306(i), or 173.309(d) of this subchapter. * * *
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) For other than a bulk package or a cylinder, a person must retain a copy of the manufacturer's notification,
(iii) When applicable, a person must retain a copy of any supporting documentation used to determine an equivalent level of performance under the selective testing variation in § 178.601(g)(1) of this subchapter. Such documentation is to be retained by the person certifying compliance with § 178.601(g)(1), as prescribed in § 178.601(l), and retained as prescribed in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
(i)
(a) * * *
(6) For limited quantities and ORM material, the overpack is marked with a limited quantity marking prescribed in § 172.315 of this subchapter or, the ORM marking prescribed in § 172.316 of this subchapter, unless a limited quantity or ORM marking representative of the hazardous material in the overpack is visible.
(7) For excepted quantities, the overpack is marked with the required marking of § 173.4a of this part unless visible.
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(F) Class 8 (corrosive) materials UN2794, UN2795, UN2803, UN2809, UN3028, UN3506; and
(3) * * *
(c) * * *
(b)
(ii) Until December 31, 2012, a package containing such articles may be marked with the proper shipping name “Cartridges, small arms” or “Cartridges, power device (
(iii) Cartridges, small arms, Cartridges, power device (
(A) Ammunition for rifle, pistol or shotgun;
(B) Ammunition with inert projectiles or blank ammunition;
(C) Ammunition having no tear gas, incendiary, or detonating explosive projectiles;
(D) Ammunition not exceeding 12.7 mm (50 caliber or 0.5 inch) for rifle or pistol, cartridges or 8 gauge for shotshells;
(E) Cartridges for tools, blank; and
(F) Cases, cartridge, empty with primer.
(G) Cartridges, power device (
(2) Packaging for Cartridges, small arms, Cartridges for tools, blank, Cases, cartridge empty with primer, and eligible Cartridges, power device as limited quantity or ORM–D material must be as follows:
(i) Ammunition must be packed in inside boxes, or in partitions that fit snugly in the outside packaging, or in metal clips;
(ii) Primers must be protected from accidental initiation;
(iii) Inside boxes, partitions or metal clips must be packed in securely-closed strong outside packagings;
(iv) Maximum gross weight is limited to 30 kg (66 pounds) per package; and
(v) Cartridges for tools, blank, Cartridges, power devices which are used to project fastening devices, Cases, cartridge, empty with primer, and 22 caliber rim-fire cartridges may be packaged loose in strong outside packagings.
Until December 31, 2020 and for the purposes of this subchapter, “ORM–D material” means a material such as a Consumer commodity, Cartridges, small arms, Cartridges, power devices
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) For transportation aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft, contains more than 24% but not more than 70% alcohol by volume when in unopened retail packagings not exceeding 5 liters (1.3 gallons) carried in carry-on or checked baggage, with a total net quantity per person of 5 liters (1.3) gallons (See § 175.10(a)(4) of this subchapter); or
(iii) When carried as cargo, contains more than 24% but not more than 70% alcohol by volume in an inner packaging not exceeding 5 L (1.3 gallons).
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) Strong outer packagings as specified in this part, marking requirements specified in subpart D of part 172 of this subchapter, and the 30 kg (66 pounds) gross weight limitation when—
(a) Polyester resin kits consisting of a base material component (Class 3, Packing Group II or III) and an activator component (Type D, E, or F organic peroxide that does not require temperature control)—
(1) The organic peroxide component must be packed in inner packagings not over 125 mL (4.22 fluid ounces) net capacity each for liquids or 500 g (17.64 ounces) net capacity each for solids.
(2)(i) Except for transportation by aircraft, the flammable liquid component must be packaged in suitable inner packagings.
(ii) For transportation by aircraft, a Packing Group II base material is limited to a quantity of 5 L (1.3 gallons) in metal or plastic inner packagings and 1 L (0.3 gallons) in glass inner packagings. A Packing Group III base material is limited to a quantity of 10 L (2.6 gallons) in metal or plastic inner packagings and 2.5 L (0.66 gallons) in glass inner packagings.
(3) If the flammable liquid component and the organic peroxide component will not interact dangerously in the event of leakage, they may be packed in the same outer packaging.
(4) The Packing Group assigned will be II or III, according to the criteria for Class 3, applied to the base material. Additionally, polyester resin kits must be packaged in specification combination packagings, based on the performance level required of the base material (II or III) contained within the kit, as prescribed in §§ 173.202 or 173.203 of this subchapter, as appropriate.
(5) For transportation by aircraft, the following additional requirements apply:
(i) Closures on inner packagings containing liquids must be secured by secondary means;
(ii) Inner packagings containing liquids must be capable of meeting the pressure differential requirements prescribed in § 173.27(c); and
(iii) The total quantity of activator and base material may not exceed 5 kg (11 lbs) per package for a Packing Group II base material. The total quantity of activator and base material may not exceed 10 kg (22 lbs) per package for a Packing Group III base material. The total quantity of polyester resin kits per package is calculated on a one-to-one basis (i.e., 1 L equals 1 kg).
(b) Polyester resin kits are eligible for the Small Quantity exceptions in § 173.4 and the Excepted Quantity exceptions in § 173.4a, as applicable.
(c)
(1) For other than transportation by aircraft, the organic peroxide component must be packed in inner packagings not over 125 mL (4.22 fluid ounces) net capacity each for liquids or 500 g (17.64 ounces) net capacity each for solids. For transportation by aircraft, the organic peroxide component must be packed in inner packagings not over 30 mL (4.22 fluid ounces) net capacity each for liquids or 100 g (17.64 ounces) net capacity each for solids.
(2) Except for transportation by aircraft, the flammable liquid component must be packed in inner packagings not over 5 L (1.3 gallons) net capacity each for a Packing Group II and
(3) If the flammable liquid component and the organic peroxide component will not interact dangerously in the event of leakage, they may be packed in the same outer packaging.
(4) For transportation by aircraft, the following additional requirements apply:
(i) Closures on inner packagings containing liquids must be secured by secondary means as prescribed in § 173.27(d);
(ii) Inner packagings containing liquids must be capable of meeting the pressure differential requirements prescribed in § 173.27(c);
(iii) The total quantity of activator and base material may not exceed 1 kg (2.2 lbs) per package for a Packing Group II base material. The total quantity of activator and base material may not exceed 5 kg (11 lbs) per package for a Packing Group III base material. The total quantity of polyester resin kits per package is calculated on a one-to-one basis (i.e., 1 L equals 1 kg);
(iv)
(v)
(d)
(a) Effective January 1, 2013, a “consumer commodity” (see § 171.8 of this subchapter) when offered for transportation by aircraft may only include articles or substances of Class 2 (non-toxic aerosols only), Class 3 (Packing Group II and III only), Division 6.1 (Packing Group III only), UN3077, UN3082, UN3175, UN3334, and UN3335, provided such materials do not have a subsidiary risk and are authorized aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft. Consumer commodities are excepted from the specification outer packaging requirements of this subchapter. Packages prepared under the requirements of this section are excepted from labeling and shipping papers when transported by highway or rail. Except as indicated in § 173.24(i), each completed package must conform to §§ 173.24 and 173.24a of this subchapter. Additionally, except for the pressure differential requirements in § 173.27(c), the requirements of § 173.27 do not apply to packages prepared in accordance with this section. Packages prepared under the requirements of this section may be offered for transportation and transported by all modes. As applicable, the following apply:
Smokeless powder for small arms which has been classed in Division 1.3 or Division 1.4 may be reclassed in Division 4.1, for domestic transportation by motor vehicle, rail car, vessel, or cargo-only aircraft, subject to the following conditions:
(a) Powders that have been approved as Division 1.3C or Division 1.4C may be reclassed to Division 4.1 in accordance with §§ 173.56 and 173.58 of this part.
(c) Only combination packagings with inner packagings not exceeding 3.6 kg (8 pounds) net mass are authorized. Inner packagings must be arranged and protected so as to prevent simultaneous ignition of the contents. The complete package must be of the same type which has been examined as required in § 173.56 of this part.
(d) Inside packages that have been examined and approved by the Associate Administrator may be packaged in UN 4G fiberboard boxes meeting the Packing Group I performance level, provided all inside containers are packed to prevent shifting and the net weight of smokeless powder in any one box does not exceed 7.3 kg (16 pounds).
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) When a capacitor's energy storage capacity is less than or equal to 10 Wh or when the energy storage capacity of each capacitor in a module is less than or equal to 10 Wh, the capacitor or module must be protected against short circuit or be fitted with a metal strap connecting the terminals; or
(ii) When the energy storage capacity of a capacitor or a capacitor in a module is more than 10 Wh, the capacitor or module must be fitted with a metal strap connecting the terminals;
(a) * * *
(1) Cells and batteries manufactured according to a type meeting the requirements of sub-section 38.3 of the Manual of Tests and Criteria, Revision 3, Amendment 1 or any subsequent revision and amendment applicable at the date of the type testing may continue to be transported, unless otherwise provided in this subchapter. Cell and battery types only meeting the requirements of the Manual of Tests and Criteria, Revision 3, are no longer valid. However, cells and batteries manufactured in conformity with such types before July 2003 may continue to be transported if all other applicable requirements are fulfilled.
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 44701; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(15) * * *
(v) * * *
(C) Is removed and placed in a strong, rigid packaging marked with the words “not restricted” in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of § 172.102, Special provision 130, of this subchapter; or
(19) * * *
(vii) Each fuel cell and fuel cell cartridge must conform to IEC 62282–6–100 and IEC 62282–6–100 Amend. 1 (IBR; see § 171.7 of this subchapter) and must be marked with a manufacturer's certification that it conforms to the specification. In addition, each fuel cell cartridge must be marked with the
(viii) Interaction between fuel cells and integrated batteries in a device must conform to IEC 62282–6–100 and IEC 62282–6–100 Amend. 1 (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). Fuel cells whose sole function is to charge a battery in the device are not permitted; and
(24) Small cartridges fitted into devices with no more than four small cylinders of carbon dioxide or other suitable gas in Division 2.2. The water capacity of each cylinder must not exceed 50 mL (equivalent to a 28 g carbon dioxide cartridge), with the approval of the operator.
(a)
(1) Federal law forbids the carriage of hazardous materials aboard aircraft in your luggage or on your person. A violation can result in five years' imprisonment and penalties of $250,000 or more (49 U.S.C. 5124). Hazardous materials include explosives, compressed gases, flammable liquids and solids, oxidizers, poisons, corrosives and radioactive materials. Examples: Paints, lighter fluid, fireworks, tear gases, oxygen bottles, and radio-pharmaceuticals.
(2) There are special exceptions for small quantities (up to 70 ounces total) of medicinal and toilet articles carried in your luggage and certain smoking materials carried on your person. For further information contact your airline representative.
(b)
(c)
(d)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) For each package containing a hazardous material acceptable for carriage aboard passenger-carrying aircraft, no more than 25 kg (55 pounds) net weight of hazardous material may be loaded in an inaccessible manner. In addition to the 25 kg limitation, an additional 75 kg (165 pounds) net weight of Division 2.2 (non-flammable compressed gas) may be loaded in an inaccessible manner. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to Class 9, articles of Identification Numbers UN0012, UN0014, or UN0055 also meeting the requirements of § 173.63(b), and Limited or Excepted Quantity material.
(e) * * *
(1) Class 3, PG III (unless the substance is also labeled CORROSIVE), Class 6.1 (unless the substance is also labeled for any hazard class or division except FLAMMABLE LIQUID), Division 6.2, Class 7 (unless the hazardous material meets the definition of another hazard class), Class 9, articles of Identification Numbers UN0012, UN0014, or UN0055 also meeting the requirements of § 173.63(b), and those marked as a Limited Quantity or Excepted Quantity material.
(f) * * *
* * *
b. Division 6.1 (unless the substance is also labeled for any hazard class or division except FLAMMABLE LIQUID)
d. Class 9, Limited Quantity or Excepted Quantity material.
e. Articles of Identification Numbers UN0012, UN0014, or UN0055 also meeting the requirements of § 173.63(b).
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
(i) Exceptions—A vehicle or mechanical equipment is excepted from the requirements of this subchapter if any of the following are met:
(1) The vehicle or mechanical equipment has an internal combustion engine using liquid fuel that has a flashpoint less than 38 °C (100 °F), the fuel tank is empty, and the engine is run until it stalls for lack of fuel;
(2) The vehicle or mechanical equipment has an internal combustion engine using liquid fuel that has a flashpoint of 38 °C (100 °F) or higher, the fuel tank contains 418 L (110 gallons) of fuel or less, and there are no fuel leaks in any portion of the fuel system;
(3) The vehicle or mechanical equipment is stowed in a hold or compartment designated by the administration of the country in which the vessel is registered as specially designed and approved for vehicles and mechanical equipment and there are no
(4) The vehicle or mechanical equipment is electrically powered solely by wet electric storage batteries (including nonspillable batteries) or sodium batteries; or
(5) The vehicle or mechanical equipment is equipped with liquefied petroleum gas or other compressed gas fuel tanks, the tanks are completely emptied of liquefied or compressed gas and the positive pressure in the tank does not exceed 2 bar (29 psig), the line from the fuel tank to the regulator and the regulator itself is drained of all traces of liquefied or compressed gas, and the fuel shut-off valve is closed.
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.
(l)
(1) The test report must be maintained at each location where the packaging is manufactured, certified, and a design qualification test or periodic retest is conducted as follows:
(2) The test report must be made available to a user of a packaging or a representative of the Department upon request. The test report, at a minimum, must contain the following information:
(l)
(1) The test report must be maintained at each location where the packaging is manufactured, certified, and a design qualification test or periodic retest is conducted as follows:
(2) The test report must be made available to a user of a packaging or a representative of the Department upon request. The test report, at a minimum, must contain the following information:
(i) Name and address of test facility;
(ii) Name and address of the person certifying the IBC;
(iii) A unique test report identification;
(iv) Date of test report;
(v) Manufacturer of the IBC;
(vi) Description of the IBC design type (e.g., dimensions, materials, closures, thickness, representative service equipment, etc.);
(viii) Maximum IBC capacity;
(ix) Characteristics of test contents;
(x) Test descriptions and results (including drop heights, hydrostatic pressures, tear propagation length, etc.); and
(xi) The signature of the person conducting the test, and name of the person responsible for testing.
(i)
(1) The test report must be maintained at each location where the packaging is manufactured, certified, and a design qualification test or periodic retest is conducted as follows:
(2) The test report must be made available to a user of a Large Packaging or a representative of the Department of Transportation upon request. The test report, at a minimum, must contain the following information:
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend its adjudication regulations and the appeals regulations and rules of practice of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board). There are two major components of these proposed changes. The first is to require all claims to be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary, regardless of the type of claim or posture in which the claim arises. The second is to provide that VA would accept an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) as a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) only if it is submitted on a standardized form provided by VA for the purpose of appealing the decision, in cases where such a form is provided. The purpose of these amendments is to improve the quality and timeliness of the processing of veterans' claims for benefits.
Comments must be received by VA on or before December 30, 2013.
Written comments may be submitted through
Stephanie Caucutt Li, Chief, Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–9700. (This is not a toll-free number.)
This document proposes to amend 38 CFR parts 3, 19, and 20. The proposed amendments would require the use of standard forms to initiate claims for benefits, and to initiate appeals of AOJ decisions on those claims. VA's forms are available on the following Web site:
VA is proposing to amend its adjudication regulations and the appeals regulations and rules of practice of the Board. There are two major components of these proposed changes. The first is to require all claims to be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary, regardless of the type of claim or posture in which the claim arises. The second is to provide that VA would accept an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by AOJ as an NOD only if it is submitted on a standardized form provided by VA for the purpose of appealing the decision, in cases where such a form is provided.
These amendments are necessary to improve the quality and timeliness of the processing of veterans' claims for benefits. These changes are intended to modernize the VA system so that all veterans receive more timely and accurate adjudications of their claims and appeals. VA's goal is to process all claims with 98 percent accuracy within 125 days by 2015. VA is experiencing a significant increase in claims volume in the compensation benefit line, which has consequences for the timeliness of decisions on claims for benefits, and appeals of those decisions. As discussed more fully below, these amendments would improve the efficiency of the claims adjudication and appeals process in order to respond to the increasing volume and complexity of compensation claims.
VA has clear authority to make these regulatory changes. VA is granted broad authority to “prescribe all rules and regulations which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the laws administered by [VA] and are consistent with those laws,” including specifically authority to prescribe “the forms of application by claimants under such laws”. 38 U.S.C. 501(a).
Regulatory change is necessary to promote the submission of claims and appeals in standard formats that are more easily digitalized and processed than non-standard submissions. When a compensation claim is granted, VA pays a monthly benefit according to the severity of the veteran's disability, beginning from the claim's effective date, which is usually the date the claim was filed. VA's current rules allow a claimant to submit an “informal” claim in a non-standard format that not only may be difficult to distinguish from other routine correspondence but may be incomplete for adjudication. While the current rules are meant to minimize the burden associated with initiating a claim, and allow benefits to be paid from the earliest possible date if the claim is ultimately granted, they also unintentionally incentivize the submission of claims in non-standard formats that frustrate timely, accurate, and orderly claims processing. This rule proposes to eliminate the concept of an “informal” claim, and replace it with a process that would incentivize the submission of claims in a format more amenable to efficient processing, while still allowing veterans to receive favorable effective date treatment similar to that available under the current “informal” claim rule.
In order to achieve the requirement that all claims be filed on a standard form, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR 3.155. Claims filed through an online claims submission tool within a VA Web-based electronic claims application system would be considered filed as of the date of an “incomplete claim” if the claim is ultimately completed within 1 year. This would allow the claimant to preserve an effective date, secure any necessary evidence, and submit the claim to VA in a package that facilitates efficient processing. VA proposes to establish rules for assigning effective dates for claims depending on the format in which they are filed. In particular, paper and other claims would be considered filed as of the date a complete claim is filed. VA further proposes to amend 38 CFR 3.160, to clarify what constitutes a complete claim. VA also proposes to remove 38 CFR 3.157, which generally requires VA to deem various documents other than claims forms to constitute claims. However, VA would seek to preserve many of the features of § 3.157 that are favorable to veterans through an amendment to 38 CFR 3.400, providing that medical records which indicate an increase in disability may be the basis for an effective date of increased compensation provided a complete claim for increase is received within 1 year.
Regulatory change is also necessary to improve the quality and timeliness of VA's processing of appeals. By statute, the first step in the VA appellate process is filing an NOD. VA's current rule
Therefore, VA proposes to require that a claimant may initiate an appeal from an adverse decision of the AOJ only by submitting a standard form whenever the AOJ provides a form for that purpose. VA proposes to amend 38 CFR 20.201 to redefine what constitutes an NOD. VA proposes to add a paragraph (a), which would state that VA will accept as an NOD only the form provided by the AOJ for the purpose of initiating an appeal in cases where such a form is provided. In cases where the AOJ provides a form for purposes of initiating an appeal, an NOD would consist of a completed and timely submitted copy of that form. VA also proposes to add a new paragraph (b) to § 20.201, which would retain the current standard for NODs relating to decisions of the AOJ in cases where no such form is provided. This proposed rule is necessary to allow VA to require the use of a standard form and design appeal forms tailored to the specific needs of particular benefit lines rather than a single agency-wide generic form.
VA also proposes to add two new sections to part 19. New § 19.23 would clarify whether the requirements of current 38 CFR 19.26, 19.27, and 19.28, or proposed § 19.24, apply to a case. New § 19.24 would set forth procedures for AOJ processing of NODs governed by proposed § 20.201(a), including procedures governing the treatment of incomplete forms. Additionally, VA proposes to make minor changes to § 3.2600, which discusses review of benefit claims decisions after filing of an NOD, § 20.3(c), which defines “appellant,” and § 20.200, which describes what constitutes an appeal. The specific revisions are explained in further detail below.
These changes generally would preclude claimants from initiating claims and appeals through non-standard means. However, VA believes the benefits of these changes would outweigh any burden of that limitation, for three primary reasons. First, requiring the use of standard forms would impose minimal if any burden on claimants because the forms are designed to be simple to use and guide the claimant in providing information necessary to substantiate their claim which would otherwise be required to be provided under current procedures. Second, these proposed changes would allow claimants, through use of VA's electronic applications process, to preserve the same beneficial effective-date treatment they could obtain under current procedures regarding non-standard informal claims. Third, the use of standard forms would enable VA to more quickly process claims and would enhance the efficiency and timeliness of VA's claims processing and benefit delivery system-wide.
This proposed rule would apply only with respect to claims and appeals filed 30 days after the date this rule is published in the
Claimants must file “a specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary” in order for VA to pay benefits. 38 U.S.C. 5101(a)(1). VA is required to notify the claimant of any information or evidence necessary to substantiate the claim (hereinafter “section 5103 notice”). 38 U.S.C. 5103(a)(1). Additionally, VA must make “reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary” to substantiate the claim, to include assistance in obtaining records and providing medical examinations. 38 U.S.C. 5103A. Since there are no limitations or restrictions on the number of claims a claimant may file, one claimant can have multiple claims pending for adjudication. For instance, a claimant may request benefits for one or multiple issues in one claim, and the same claimant may also submit additional claim(s) for one or multiple issues while the previous claim is still pending for adjudication. In such cases, VA generally must then send the claimant a different 5103 notice for those new claims filed and assist by developing evidence for these added claims. The filing of additional claims while a previous claim is still pending significantly lengthens the overall processing and adjudication of all the claims filed, i.e., the previously filed claim as well as the additional claim(s) filed, because additionally filed subsequent claims are associated, processed, and adjudicated with the previously filed pending claim. Thus, VA must gather additional evidence for the subsequently filed claim, thereby extending the time the additional claim is pending, and must identify and adjudicate all the issues or contentions claimed on all filed claims which are ready for a determination, while simultaneously continuing to develop the issues or contentions which are not ready for determination. This process will lengthen the overall adjudication time of all claims filed by one claimant, particularly when multiple issues or contentions are raised for every claim filed.
If VA receives an incomplete application, VA will notify the claimant of the information necessary to complete the application and will defer assistance until the claimant submits this information. 38 CFR 3.159(b)(2). If VA does not receive a complete claim within 1 year of receipt of the incomplete application, VA will not take action on processing or adjudicating the incomplete claim. The date of receipt of the incomplete application or informal claim will be preserved as a date of claim if a completed application is submitted within 1 year of receipt. However, if VA does not receive the completed application or the information or evidence necessary to substantiate the claim within 1 year of submission, the date of receipt of the claim would not be preserved and the claimant would have to submit or resubmit a completed claim, resulting in a different date of claim.
VA receives an enormous volume of non-standard submissions under its current rules. Current 38 CFR 3.155(a) provides that “[a]ny communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for benefits . . . may be considered an informal claim.” If a claimant submits an informal claim, and a claim on a form prescribed by the Secretary is not previously of record, VA will furnish the appropriate application, depending upon the particular benefit sought, for completion and notify the claimant that the date VA received the informal claim will be preserved as the date of claim for effective date purposes if the completed application is filed within 1 year of the date it was sent. If a completed application is not received within the 1-year timeframe, VA will not take further action on the informal claim. 38 CFR 3.151, 3.152, 3.155.
Current 38 CFR 3.155(c) provides that if a claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary is already of record, any informal request for increase or
When the AOJ renders a decision affecting the payment of benefits or the granting of relief, it will provide a claimant with notice of the decision and his or her appellate rights. 38 U.S.C. 5104; 38 CFR 3.103(b)(1). Appellate review by the Board of an AOJ decision is initiated by a timely filed NOD. 38 U.S.C. 7105(a). Upon receipt of an NOD, the AOJ is required to “undertake such development or review action as it deems proper” in an attempt resolve the claim, either through “granting the benefit sought or though withdrawal of the [NOD].” 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(1). If the disagreement cannot be resolved, an appeal is completed by a timely filed Substantive Appeal after a Statement of the Case (SOC) is furnished. 38 U.S.C. 7105 (a), (d)(1) and (3); 38 CFR 20.200, 20.202. A claimant, or his or her representative, must submit an NOD in writing within 1 year (or 60 days for simultaneously contested claims) from the date of mailing of the notice of the initial adjudicative determination by the AOJ. 38 U.S.C. 7105(b).
Currently, VA will accept “[a] written communication from a claimant or his or her representative expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the [AOJ] and a desire to contest the result” as an NOD. 38 CFR 20.201. If the AOJ receives a timely filed written communication expressing disagreement, but cannot clearly identify that communication as expressing an intent to appeal, or cannot identify which claims the claimant wants to appeal, the AOJ will contact the claimant orally such as by telephone or in person or in writing to request clarification of his or her intent.
After a timely NOD is received, the AOJ must undertake any necessary development actions.
VA is facing an unprecedented volume of compensation claims, and is experiencing unacceptable delays at every phase of its process for adjudicating claims and appeals. As of August 24, 2013, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which processes claims for monetary benefits, had 760,820 compensation and pension claims pending. Four hundred seventy-one thousand, six hundred fifty (471,650) were considered part of the “backlog,” meaning they were pending longer than VA's goal of 125 days. This means that 62 percent of the claims inventory was pending longer than VA's operational goal. VA experienced roughly a 46 percent increase in annual claims receipts from 888,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2008, to 1.3 million in FY 2011. VBA has processed over 1 million compensation claims each of the last 3 fiscal years (FY 2010–FY 2012), but the total volume of claims receipts has outpaced production. Additionally, the number of medical conditions contained in each claim has increased, leading to greater complexity for each claim.
Many factors contribute to the backlog by increasing both the volume and complexity of claims. Some factors external to VA include 10 years of war with increased survival rates, post-conflict downsizing of the military, and a difficult economy. Other factors include greatly increased VA outreach, the decision to afford presumptive service-connection to additional conditions for exposure to herbicides, and special evidentiary rules for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
However, many features of VA's current claims process also contribute to the backlog, or at a minimum hamper VA's ability to address the backlog. Most inputs into the claims process, such as claimant submissions, are still received in paper format. Further, many submissions, including submissions requiring VA to take action, are not received in a standard format. This increases time spent determining whether a claim has been filed, identifying the benefit claimed, sending letters to the claimant and awaiting a response, and requesting and awaiting receipt of evidence. These steps all significantly delay the adjudication and delivery of benefits to veterans and their families. By placing significant burdens on VA, these informal submissions slow down the adjudication for all veterans, including those who do submit complete claims on standardized forms. By requiring the use of standard forms for all claims, VA would be able to more easily identify issues and contentions associated with claims that are filed, resulting in greater accuracy, efficiency, and speed in the processing and adjudication of claims, which benefits both the individual claimant and all veterans who have filed claims.
Similar challenges exist for appeals. While the Board is responsible for issuing VA's final decision on a benefits claim, much of the appellate processing that takes place between an initial AOJ decision and the Board's disposition of an appeal is performed by VBA. Accordingly, this appellate processing is performed by the same pool of resources
In FY 2011, the average length of time between receipt of an NOD at the AOJ and certification of an appeal to the Board was 883 days. Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs,
VA is aggressively pursuing a comprehensive transformation in order to respond to these challenges. VBA must use its limited resources as efficiently as possible, striking the optimal balance between resolution of initial claims and timely appeals processing. To be successful, any effort to quicken processing must assume ongoing workload challenges relative to VA's operating resources, and therefore focus on process improvements and efficiency gains. However, VA must also ensure that efforts to make the process more efficient do not also unduly erode the longstanding informal, non-adversarial, pro-claimant nature of the VA system.
This proposed rule aims to strike an appropriate balance between these interests by increasing the role of standard forms. Use of standard forms greatly facilitates efficient and accurate claims processing. A VBA adjudicator can more readily identify the benefits sought and contentions that are relevant to the claim when inputs are received in a predictable, regularly occurring way rather than in an open-ended narrative format. Further, even if a claimant prefers to interact with VA through paper, submissions received in a standard format can be much more easily scanned and turned into data for purposes of processing a claim within VA's own business applications. In this way, this proposed rule would apply some of the efficiencies previously only enjoyed by particular subsets of claims, such as fully developed claims (FDCs), to the entire claims system. The intent of this proposed rule is to streamline and modernize the VBA claims and appeals process in order to expedite and maximize the delivery of benefits to veterans and their families.
VBA has implemented a series of initiatives in eliminating the backlog of claims and has deployed technology solutions to end its reliance on the outmoded paper-intensive processes that thwart timely and accurate claims processing. These solutions consist of several Web-based paperless claims systems. eBenefits is an online benefits account that veterans and their families can use to apply for and manage their VA benefits. Claimants can fill out and submit a fully paperless claim online. The Stakeholder Enterprise Portal (SEP) allows Veterans Service Organizations (VSO) to assist claimants in completing a claim through eBenefits. The Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) is an internal VA business application for electronic claims processing, which facilitates streamlined development of electronic claims. VBMS facilitates the evidence-gathering phase of the claims process, and employs evaluation and rules-based decision-support tools to increase the speed and accuracy of rating decisions.
When a claimant files a claim electronically through eBenefits, he or she is guided through a series of interview-style questions that are taken directly from the questions found in VA Form 21–526EZ,
Since eBenefits provides step-by-step guidance in filling out the online form, it may ease the claimant's burden in filling out the application and provide a more convenient method of submitting the claim, as the claimant does not have to apply at the VA regional office. The Web-based electronic claims processing system also ensures more accurate responses from the claimant as well as a more consistently completed form. The nature and format of the interview in eBenefits prompts claimants to answer all pertinent questions in order to obtain information necessary to substantiate the claim, checks for errors and missing information, and readdresses any unanswered questions, of all which ensure more accurate claims processing and adjudication, resulting in expedited delivery of benefits to claimants.
Apart from the specific advantages of eBenefits, a paperless system is superior to a paper-bound system for many reasons. First, a paper claims file can only be in a single place at once, making it far more difficult to route different medical issues to specialists around the country for consideration. Electronic claims can be separated by issue and brokered for simultaneous, rather than sequential, consideration by various centers of excellence specializing in specific types of medical issue around the country. Second, paper claims files can be lost, damaged, or destroyed. These risks are far lower for electronic files. Third, paper files must be searched and reviewed page-by-page. This is a significant limitation because many of the claims files handled by VA are of considerable size. An AOJ adjudicator looking for a particular contention or piece of evidence must literally thumb through thousands of pages in each file. For electronic files, robust optical character recognition capabilities make it possible to search thousands of pages in a fraction of the time required to search paper files. Fourth, paper files are heavy and take up enormous amounts of physical space, creating a challenging work environment for AOJ personnel. One of VA's RO's required structural improvements in order to accommodate the sheer weight of paper files. Finally, even if VA's own business processes are fully paperless, paper submissions must be manually scanned into VBMS, adding an extra time-intensive step for paper submissions. A piece of mail must be identified, sorted, sent to a scanning facility, and meta-data must be entered. The nationwide average delay between when a piece of mail is received, and when it can actually be processed by an AOJ adjudicator using VBMS, is 22.6 days. This delay does not exist for submissions that are initially received in an electronic format.
VA has determined that changes to its rules governing claims are necessary in order to facilitate a transition to a modernized, more efficient process that is less reliant on paper. In order to incentivize the submission of claims in a standard format for more effective and efficient claims processing, VA proposes to replace the terminology “informal claim” with “incomplete claim” and “complete claim” and establish effective date treatment of incomplete claims based on the format used in submission. Generally, a “complete claim” would be a form prescribed by the Secretary for the purposes of initiating a claim that is fully filled out, to include identifying the benefits sought. An “incomplete claim” would generally be a written communication expressing a desire for benefits that falls short of the standards for a complete claim, similar to the current standard for an “informal claim.”
VA has authority to replace the current “informal claim” concept with a different process. No statute envisions or requires VA's current “informal claims” rule—it is entirely a feature of VA's regulations. Accordingly, VA has authority to alter the contours of the rule to produce a claims processing system that is better suited to veterans' current needs.
VA is required to furnish all instructions and forms necessary to apply for a benefit upon request made by any person claiming or applying for, or expressing an intent to claim or apply for, a benefit. 38 U.S.C. 5102(a). While VA will continue to furnish the appropriate forms to claimants, a submission on a prescribed paper form that is not complete, paper statements or electronic mail, whether submitted through eBenefits or otherwise, indicating a desire for benefits would not be considered a claim of any kind, and would not be the basis for an effective date prior to the date of the complete claim. However, claimants who file an incomplete electronic claim within eBenefits would receive up to 1 year to complete the claim.
For purposes of clarification, we would like to explain some terms used in describing the electronic claims process. VA considers an act of “submitting” to encompass the process of entering into the eBenefits system, filling out the online application through the series of interview questions, and electronically saving the application. If the claimant saves the online application, whether completely filled out or not, and does not transmit the online application for processing, the application will be saved and stored in eBenefits for 1 year. These electronically stored, non-transmitted online application(s) are considered “incomplete” electronic claims. When the claimant transmits the online application for processing and adjudication, VA considers this act of transmitting the application as the final step in “filing” the electronic claim.
If a claimant files a completed electronic claim within 1 year of the initial submission of an incomplete electronic claim, the completed claim will be considered filed as of the date the incomplete electronic claim was electronically saved or stored in eBenefits for effective date purposes. The date the completed claim is transmitted would start the toll on the “age” of the electronic claim. We anticipate that claims filed through VA's Web-based electronic claims processing system would be processed and adjudicated more expeditiously and efficiently than in the paper-based claims processing and would not contribute to the claims backlog as much as the traditional paper-based processing system.
This electronic claims process aligns claimant incentives with the interests of efficient and effective claims processing. A claimant receives the fastest possible grant of benefits if a claimant submits all evidence the claimant is able to procure in a complete package that facilitates efficient processing. However, claimants understandably are often reluctant to wait until all evidence is assembled before submitting a claim, since it is the submission of the claim which generally establishes the effective date of an award of benefits.
We note that standard forms such as the 21–526EZ contain section 5103 notice. Similarly, eBenefits provides the section 5103 notice to claimants as part of the submission process. Increased use of the electronic claims process and standard forms such as the 526EZ therefore implies that more claimants will receive their section 5103 notice some way other than in a separate notice letter.
In Public Law 112–154, Congress made clear that VA is authorized to provide section 5103 notice to claimants through the use of standard forms. VA believes Congress' intent was to make the section 5103 notice process less sequential in order to expedite the processing of claims. Congress deleted “[u]pon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application” from the first sentence of 38 U.S.C. 5103. The first sentence of that section now reads, “[t]he Secretary shall provide to the claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, by the most effective means available, including electronic communication or notification in writing, notice of any information, and any medical or lay evidence not previously provided to the Secretary that is necessary to substantiate the claim.” VA interprets this statutory change as clear authority to satisfy notice requirements in the most efficient way possible, without altering the important substantive role that notice plays in the claims process.
A House Committee Report discussing proposed bill language that was ultimately incorporated in Public Law 112–154 makes clear that VA's interpretation is consistent with Congress' intent in amending section 5103. Congress recognized the crucial role that Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) notice plays in the claims process, but also noted “unintended consequences, including court interpretations, of VCAA that have resulted in delays in claims processing . . . the Committee believes that sensible modifications can be made to VCAA without undoing the intent of VCAA, while also expediting the claims process.” H.R. Rep. 112–241 at 9. Clearly the intent of the statutory change was to “remove the requirement that the VCAA notice be sent only after receipt of a claim,” and the framers of this legislation explicitly envisioned that VA would implement these
While notice on claims forms would necessarily result in notice relating generally to the type of benefit claim being submitted rather than notice concerning specific circumstances of the individual claimant, such notice is all section 5103 requires.
To the extent there is any inconsistency between VA's current notice and assistance rules and the current statute as amended by Public Law 112–154, the statute clearly governs. VA is examining whether 38 CFR 3.159 should be amended to account for the new statute, but believes the statute is clear authority for the changes affecting how VA provides notice that we propose here.
We propose the following changes to 38 CFR part 3, subpart A in order to execute this modernization of VA's claims process.
In proposed § 3.1(p), we would define “Claim” to mean “a written communication requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a specific benefit under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.” This definition would replace the current definition of “Claim—Application” which is defined as “a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit” in current paragraph (p). The current definition is confusing and does not make clear the difference between a “claim” and an “application.” Therefore, we would clarify the current definition by eliminating the words “Application,” “formal,” and “informal” in our proposed definition in order to conform with the proposed amendments to the adjudication regulations.
Currently, VA does not require that claims for entitlement under 38 U.S.C. 1151, which provides disability compensation and death benefits for a qualifying disability or death of a veteran from VA treatment, examination, or vocational rehabilitation, be submitted or filed on a standard form or application. 38 U.S.C. 1151 (2006); 38 CFR 3.150(c), 3.154, 3.361. Since we are amending VA's adjudication regulations to require that all claims be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary, we propose to revise § 3.150 by removing paragraph (c), which provides that when disability or death is due to VA hospital treatment, training, medical or surgical treatment, or examination, a specific application for benefits will not be initiated. We also propose revising § 3.154, which provides that “VA may accept as a claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 . . . any communication in writing indicating an intent to file a claim for disability compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation,” to require claimants to file or submit a complete paper or electronic claim in order to apply for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 and § 3.361, the regulation governing the criteria of entitlement to 38 U.S.C. 1151 benefits. 38 U.S.C. 1151; 38 CFR 3.150 and 3.154.
VA's intent is to modernize the claims processing system by standardizing the format in which all disability claims would be received. In order for AOJ personnel to readily identify claims and process them efficiently, it is imperative that all claims appear in easily identifiable formats, using a standardized form. Claims explicitly encouraged to be submitted in non-standard ways are inconsistent with that model and would undermine the predictability that will make standardization successful. Accordingly, VA proposes to require that even claims based on disability or death due to VA hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, examination, training and rehabilitation services or compensated work therapy program under be initiated by completing and filing a standard form. VA believes that using a standard form is a minimal burden to place on claimants, even those who may be due compensation as a result of VA's own errors in providing medical treatment.
In proposed § 3.155, we would replace the current concept of “informal claims” with the modernized process we describe in parts IV and V of this notice.
In this rule, we propose to establish claims and effective date rules that would govern the VA system after this proposed rule becomes final. We would clarify that this process would apply to all claims governed by part 3 of title 38 in the Code of Federal Regulations.
In paragraph (a), we propose to make clear that a complete non-electronic claim is considered filed as of the date it was received by VA. Paper or other communications, including electronic communications received outside a claims submission tool within a VA Web-based electronic claims application system that fall short of the standards of a complete claim would not constitute claims of any kind, incomplete or otherwise, and could not be the basis of an effective date prior to the date the complete claim was submitted. Accordingly, there is no “incomplete claim” standard that is applicable to this paragraph. We propose to make clear, in conjunction with proposed § 3.160(a), that this rule applies regardless of the reason a given submission falls short of the standards of a complete claim, i.e., whether because it is received in a non-standard format, or because the form prescribed by the Secretary is not fully filled out, i.e., lacks sufficient information for VA to adjudicate the claim.
In paragraph (b), we propose to create a standard for incomplete claims that affords the possibility of favorable effective date treatment. Any communication submitted through or action taking place in a claims submission tool within a VA Web-based electronic claims application system that indicates an intent to apply for one or more benefits administered by VA that does not meet the standards of a complete claim may be considered an incomplete claim. If a complete electronic claim is filed within 1 year of the submission of the incomplete electronic claim, the electronic claim would be considered filed as of the date of submission of the incomplete electronic claim.
The limitation that the communication must take place within an online benefits account is necessary to prevent open-ended narrative format submissions, such as unsolicited emails, from constituting incomplete claims. The further limitation that the communication must be submitted through a claims submission tool within VA's Web-based electronic application system is to ensure that non-standard communications, such as emails within the eBenefits system, do not constitute incomplete claims merely because they took place within eBenefits. VA must be careful to define incomplete claims in a way that channels claimant submissions through a predictable, standardized process.
In proposed paragraph (c), we would specify that certain communications or
Most incomplete electronic claims will likely be incomplete on purpose, in order to serve as effective date “placeholders” until all evidence is gathered. However, VA acknowledges the possibility that a claimant would submit the claim believing it to be complete, but VA would later determine the claim is incomplete. In this situation, VA will tell the claimant what information is necessary to complete the claim as required by 38 U.S.C. 5102.
We also propose to make clear that only one complete electronic claim may be associated with each incomplete electronic claim for purposes of this special effective date rule. In other words, if a claimant files one incomplete electronic claim, and then files two or more successive complete electronic claims within 1 year, only issues contained within the first complete electronic claim would relate back to the incomplete electronic claim for effective date purposes. For example, if VA receives an incomplete claim on January 1, 2014, and then receives two successive complete claims on August 1, 2014, and on November 1, 2014, VA would assign an effective date of January 1, 2014, i.e., the date the incomplete claim was received, for the issues contained within the first complete claim received on August 1, 2014. For the issues contained in the complete claim received on November 1, 2014, VA would assign an effective date of November 1, 2014, the date the second complete claim was filed or received by the VA. However, there would be no limit on the number of issues or conditions that could be contained in each complete claim. Accordingly, it would be in claimants' best interest to claim all potential issues in one comprehensive package.
VA believes this proposed rule is less apt to cause confusion than the alternative, which would allow claimants to submit several claims over the course of a year while still relating back to the earliest effective date. This alternative rule would encourage fragmented presentation of claims, which may complicate and delay the development and disposition of already pending claims by causing duplicative VA processing actions or creating confusion regarding the development actions that must be taken for each claim.
Although claimants may submit new claims at any time, it is far more efficient to submit all issues in a single unified claim. In proposed § 3.160, we would define certain types of claims in a way that is meant to complement the structure we would create in proposed § 3.155.
In proposed § 3.160(a), we would define a complete claim as “[a] submission on a paper or electronic form prescribed by the Secretary that is fully filled out and provides all requested information.” In paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4), we would then enumerate certain requirements that we view as embedded within this general rule. In paragraph (a)(1), we would make clear that a complete claim must be signed whether electronically or manually by the claimant or a person legally authorized to sign for the claimant. In paragraph (a)(2), we would make clear that a complete claim must identify the benefit sought.
In paragraph (a)(3), we would clarify that for compensation claims, a description of symptoms and specific medical conditions on which the benefit is to be based must be provided to whatever extent the form prescribed by the Secretary so requires, or else the form may not be considered complete. Similarly, in paragraph (a)(4), we would clarify that for nonservice-connected disability or death pension and parents' dependency and indemnity compensation claims, a statement of income must be provided to the extent the form prescribed by the Secretary so requires in order for the claim to be considered complete. Our intent is to make as clear as possible that information solicited by a form prescribed by the Secretary must be provided, and incomplete forms do not constitute claims. However, it is not VA's intent to reject forms for minor ministerial or formalistic deficiencies. A form prescribed by the Secretary would only be deemed incomplete if it is missing information necessary to the efficient, fair, and orderly adjudication of the claim.
In proposed paragraph (b), we would refer back to proposed § 3.155 for the definition of an incomplete claim, since the contours of what constitutes an incomplete claim would vary according to paper or electronic format as already discussed.
In proposed paragraph (c), we would define an original claim as the initial complete claim for one or more benefits on a form prescribed by the Secretary, and make clear that all subsequent claims are new and supplemental claims, which we would define in paragraph (d). In proposed paragraph (d), we would identify certain kinds of claims which constitute new and supplemental claims. These paragraphs are not meant to affect the substantive entitlement to the benefits discussed. However, paragraphs (c) and (d), together with operation of proposed § 3.155, would make clear that claims for these benefits must be initiated on standard forms.
In proposed paragraph (e), we would update the existing definition of “pending claim,” which is currently defined as “an application, formal or informal, which has not been finally adjudicated” by replacing the phrase “an application, formal or informal” with the word “claim.” In proposed paragraph (f), we would update the existing definition of “finally adjudicated claim,” currently defined as “an application, formal or informal, which has been allowed or disallowed . . .” by replacing the phrase “an application, formal or informal” with the word “claim.” Since VA proposes to eliminate the term “informal claim,” we would remove references to the phrase or words, “informal” and “formal” for consistency in the existing definitions to reflect the proposed change to eliminate “informal claims.” These subsections are not meant to alter the law of finality in the VA benefits system.
In proposed paragraph (g), we would continue the definition of “reopened claim” that appears in current § 3.160(e) with slight modifications to insert “new and material evidence” as clarification of VA's existing criteria for reopening a previously denied claim.
In proposed paragraph (h), we would explain that a claim for an increase in
We propose to remove current § 3.157, which generally provides that reports of examination or hospitalization can constitute informal claims, including claims to increase or reopen. In implementing one consistent standard for the claims process, we propose to eliminate informal claims for increase or to reopen based on receipt of VA treatment, examination, or hospitalization reports, private physician medical reports, or state, county, municipal, or other government medical facilities to establish a retroactive effective date as provided in current §§ 3.155(c) and 3.157. The idea that certain records or statements themselves constitute constructive claims is simply inconsistent with the standardization and efficiency VA intends to accomplish with this proposed rule.
However, VA fully appreciates that while a veteran is hospitalized or receiving crucial medical treatment, a veteran may be more focused on his or her health than on pursuing a claim for compensation. VA has no desire to preclude veterans from receiving benefits for periods of hospitalization or medical treatment—VA only wishes to receive inputs in a standard format in order to serve veterans as efficiently as possible.
Therefore, in place of current §§ 3.155 (c) and 3.157, VA proposes to amend § 3.400(o)(2) to explain that a retroactive effective date may be granted, when warranted by the facts found, based on date of treatment, examination, or hospitalization from any medical facility, if the claimant files a complete claim for increase within 1 year of such medical care. The proposed amendment preserves the favorable substantive features of the current treatment of reports of examination or hospitalization under § 3.157, but requires claimants to file a complete claim for increase within 1 year after medical care was received.
Current § 3.400(o)(2) provides that the effective date of an increase in disability compensation will be the earliest date on which it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred if a claim is received within 1 year from such date. Otherwise, the increase will be effective as of the date of receipt of the claim. The proposed amendment would make clear that medical records from any source, indicating an increase in disability, may provide a basis for such retroactive effective date if a complete claim is received within 1 year of the date of the medical treatment, examination, or hospitalization.
Finally, we propose minor amendments to § 3.812 governing a special allowance under Public Law 97–377. We would replace the terminology “formal” and “informal” claims with “complete” and “incomplete” claims, as appropriate, to ensure consistency with the rest of the proposed rule.
In October 2011, recognizing that VA needed to decrease appellate processing times to ensure that claimants receive more timely decisions on their appeals, VA created an intradepartmental working group to address the overall timeliness and quality of appellate processing.
After analyzing VA's appellate process, the working group determined that different changes would be needed to address different phases of the VA appellate process. One of the periods addressed was the time it takes the AOJ to issue an SOC after receipt of an NOD. The working group identified two factors within VA's control that affect this time period: (1) The NOD control time, which is how long it takes AOJ staff to identify a document submitted by a claimant or representative as an NOD and route it to the appropriate personnel for processing, and (2) the time it takes the AOJ to understand and clarify the nature of the veteran's disagreement.
The working group found that lengthy control times are in large part the result of the non-standardized way in which NODs are submitted. VA's practice of requiring only that an NOD be “in terms which can be reasonably construed as disagreement . . . and a desire for appellate review,” 38 CFR 20.201, has led to substantial variation in the statements that claimants submit to express disagreement with an AOJ's initial adjudication or an intent to appeal. AOJ personnel are required to read through the enormous volume of documents that VA receives from claimants every day in order to determine whether a statement embedded in any of these documents may “be reasonably construed” as constituting an NOD. Therefore, the working group recognized that even identifying a given document as an NOD, or potentially containing a statement that might constitute an NOD, is a time-consuming process, lacking clear standards. Moreover, where a claimant expresses his or her disagreement with an AOJ decision, the claimant may not clearly identify the issue or issues with which he or she disagrees. As a result, AOJ personnel have to delay processing of the submission in order to contact the claimant orally or in writing to clarify his or her intent.
Errors in identifying NODs can complicate otherwise straightforward claims. If AOJ personnel do not identify an NOD upon receipt, they will not route the document and claims file to the correct adjudicatory personnel to begin the appeal process. Thus, the document may not be identified as an NOD until a much later time, such as when an appeal of another issue reaches the Board and a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) concludes that a document is an NOD and remands the case to the AOJ for issuance of an SOC. 38 CFR 19.9(c);
The working group concluded that creating a standardized form that claimants could submit as an NOD would make NODs easier for AOJ personnel to identify, thus helping to decrease the NOD control time, including the processing time necessary to clarify whether a document is an NOD under § 19.26. The working group also concluded that a standardized form would have the added advantage of providing a minimal identification of the issue regarding which the veteran seeks appellate review, enabling AOJ personnel to more rapidly identify and conduct any needed development before either granting the benefit sought or issuing an SOC.
Based on the working group's analysis, in March 2012, VA began a pilot program at the Houston RO to test the use of standard NOD forms. Pursuant to this program, when the RO sent out an initial decision, it included a standard NOD form with the notification letter, providing the claimant with the option of submitting the completed form if he or she disagreed with the decision. The form provided the claimant with the opportunity to specify the issues he or she was contesting and to identify the relief he or she was seeking. From the inception of this program, VA saw a significant decrease in the NOD control time for appeals initiated using the standard NOD form. For example, from March 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013, the Houston RO's control time for a standard NOD was approximately 7 days. In contrast, from March 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013, this RO's control time for pending NODs submitted in a traditional format averaged 88 days. These statistics show a markedly decreased control time at the Houston RO of approximately 81 days averaging from March 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013. This analysis shows that by using the standard form for initiating an appeal, VA can process appeals more expeditiously, as requiring specificity concerning the appellant's contentions avoids confusion and the need to seek clarification from the appellant. By requiring the use of a standard NOD form, individual claimants as well as all appellants in the appeals process would benefit from shortened processing time and from increased accuracy in identifying contentions claimed.
The working group also proposed other process and workflow improvements that were tested during the pilot. However, only the standardized NOD was designed to directly address NOD control time. VA believes that the dramatic improvements in control time discussed above are primarily due to the use of standardized NODs. Standardized NODs are also designed to work in conjunction with the working group's other suggested workflow improvements that do not themselves require regulatory change.
Use of the standardized NOD enables AOJ personnel to more quickly conduct targeted development and consideration of a veteran's appeal. The clarity provided by standardized inputs can be expected to speed all phases of the appellate process. However, even assuming the standardized form only improves the early stages of the appellate process, VA believes that this is clearly a sufficient basis to mandate the use of a standard form for an NOD. Requiring claimants to submit their initial disagreement with an adjudicative determination of the AOJ on a standard form would clarify what actions claimants need to take to initiate an appeal of an AOJ determination. This in turn would improve VA's ability to identify NODs when they are received and would eliminate the need to contact claimants to clarify whether they intended to submit an NOD. This would help speed up the early steps of the appellate process, which can also prevent prolonged delays and speed up completion of the entire appeal. Additionally, requiring submission of a standard NOD form would promote more uniform treatment of NODs across all AOJ offices. VA believes the quality of the decisions made in appeals would also improve since the claimant would be able to clearly identify on the form the issues with which he or she disagrees.
VA, therefore, proposes to make the filing of a standard VA form the only way to submit an NOD in cases where the AOJ provides a form to the claimant for the purpose of initiating an appeal. VA fully appreciates that this proposal alters the current practice of accepting almost any statement of disagreement with an AOJ decision as an NOD. However, VA believes this step would be highly beneficial to veterans in light of lengthening appellate processing times, the dramatic increase in volume and complexity of compensation claims being received by VA, and the demonstrated improvement in appellate workflow in pilot testing of the standardized NOD.
Mandating a standard form, rather than simply encouraging its use, is necessary to ensure the efficiency gains that standard forms make possible will be realized. The pilot program at the Houston RO has demonstrated that when provided with the option of submitting a standard NOD form, a substantial number of claimants choose to submit an NOD in another format. For example, in May 2012, approximately 52 percent of the 479 NODs received at the Houston RO were submitted in a format other than the standard form, while in August 2012, approximately 40 percent of the 590 NODs submitted were filed in a format other than the standard form. Given these statistics, VA believes that continuing to allow the submission of NODs in any form a claimant chooses would not maximize the desired result of decreasing appellate processing time for all claimants.
Further, if VA does not make the form mandatory, its positive impact would be greatly diluted even if veterans and their representatives made use of the form in the majority of appeals of AOJ decisions. If VA continues to accept NODs in any format, AOJ personnel would still be required to scour all claimant submissions and engage in the time-intensive interpretive exercise of determining whether a given document could “be reasonably construed” as an NOD. Rather than having certainty that a communication must be on a standard form, in order to constitute an NOD, AOJ personnel would thus still have to engage in much of the time-consuming clarification required by the current rule.
Governing statutes permit VA to require that a claimant submit an NOD on a particular form. The applicable statutes require only that an NOD must be in writing and filed by the claimant or his or her representative with the VA activity that rendered the determination. 38 U.S.C. 7105. Congress has specifically authorized VA to issue rules concerning “the forms of application,” 38 U.S.C. 501(a)(2), and has characterized a request for Board review as an “[a]pplication for review on appeal.” 38 U.S.C. 7106, 7108. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recognized that the term “notice of disagreement” does not have a complete and unambiguous meaning in the statute.
Based on the foregoing, VA proposes to revise § 20.201 to incorporate a standardized NOD requirement. In new paragraph (a), VA proposes to outline the requirements for appeals relating to cases in which the AOJ provides a standard form for the purpose of initiating an appeal. In paragraph (a)(1), entitled “Format,” VA proposes to state that, for every case in which the AOJ provides, in connection with its decision, a form identified as being for the purpose of initiating an appeal, an NOD would consist of a completed and timely submitted copy of that form. VA would not accept as an NOD any other submission expressing disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the AOJ.
VA has chosen a flexible standard rather than identifying a particular form number or control number in the rule text in order to ensure the rule functions for all of VA's diverse operations. The standard for what constitutes an NOD applies to all VBA benefit lines, as well as the rest of VA. The form that VBA tested during the Houston RO pilot was designed for compensation claims. One of the key features of the form's design was that it solicited particular pieces of information relevant to a compensation claim. Requiring appeals of other benefits, such as home loan guaranty or education benefits, to be submitted using this form would likely be confusing to veterans. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of the VA appellate workload concerns appeals of AOJ decisions on claims for compensation. Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Accordingly, the standard reflected in proposed § 20.201(a)(1) was designed to produce a single rule that can function flexibly VA-wide while allowing for the creation of forms that are functional for each VA benefits line. Additionally, § 20.201(b) provides a “fallback” standard for benefits where standardized appellate processing is not as pressing a need as it is with compensation claims. This approach allows for standard forms in VA benefits lines where the volume, complexity, and frequency of appeal call for standardization, without disrupting the administration of other benefits that are infrequently appealed. Under proposed § 20.201(b), if VA does not provide a standard appeal form for a particular type of claim, the claim is governed by the current standard for what constitutes an NOD. As of the publication of this proposed rule, VA only expects regularly to provide a standard appeal form for compensation claims and similar monetary benefits claims. However, VA may choose to provide standard forms with AOJ decisions for other benefits lines as the volume and dynamics of VA's workload continue to evolve. Additionally, if VA fails to provide a standard appeal form to the claimant due to a case-specific error, the claimant would still be able to initiate an appeal under the current standard for an NOD where a written communication expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement and a desire to contest the result will constitute an NOD. See proposed § 20.201(b).
The second sentence would make clear that if the AOJ provides a standard form with its decision, triggering the applicability of § 20.201(a), VA will not accept a document or communication in any other format as an NOD. VA believes this rule is necessary to make use of the standard form mandatory and maximize improvement and efficiency in the appellate process. Additionally, VA proposes to clarify that submitting a different VA form does not meet the standard for an NOD in cases governed by § 20.201(a). Many VA forms, such as VA Form 21–4138,
In the future, different standard forms may be developed for different benefit lines. Under this proposed rule, the particular version provided with the AOJ decision must be used. For example, if a claimant received an AOJ decision relating to a compensation claim and received a compensation-focused form (such as VA Form 21–0958,
In proposed § 20.201(a)(2), we would make clear that VA may “provide” the form to the claimant electronically or in paper format. VA proposes that if a claimant has an online benefits account such as eBenefits, notifications within the system that provide a link to a standard appeal form would be considered sufficient for the AOJ to have “provided” the form to the claimant and trigger the applicability of § 20.201(a). Similarly, if a claimant has provided VA with an email address for the purpose of receiving communications from VA, emailing either a copy of the form itself or a hyperlink where that form may be accessed is sufficient. The email should identify that the hyperlink is to a required VA appeal form.
Finally, if a claimant has chosen to interact with VA through paper, VA would provide a paper version of the standard form in connection with its decision. The specific piece of paper that is sent to the claimant need not be returned in order to constitute an NOD, but the same form must be returned. In other words, if a claimant is sent a copy of a particular form, he or she must return a completed copy of that form, but not necessarily the same piece of paper that was mailed to the claimant.
In § 20.201(a)(3), we would make clear that any indication whatsoever in the claimant's claims file or benefits account of provision of a form would be sufficient to presume the form was provided, triggering the applicability of § 20.201(a) rather than § 20.201(b). Under this rule, an indication as minimal as a statement in a decision notification letter such as “Attached: VA Form 21–0958” would be sufficient to trigger the presumption that the form was provided and § 20.201(a) governs.
In § 20.201(a)(4), we would make clear that, if a standard VA form requires some degree of specificity from the claimant as to which issues the claimant seeks to appeal, the claimant must indeed provide the information the form requests in order for the submission to constitute an NOD. Part of the rationale for requiring standard VA forms, particularly for the appeals of compensation claims, is that they enable VA to identify the substance of an appeal as early as possible in the process. Additionally, inputs from the claimant in a standardized format are much more easily turned into data that can be used in evaluating and processing a claim or appeal. Accordingly, when a form requests a specific contention from the claimant as to the issues appealed, we propose that the claimant be required to provide it. For example, the form used in the Houston RO pilot provided separate boxes allowing claimants to identify those issues with which they were expressing disagreement. VA believes it would be helpful to the process to have this requirement in the governing regulation.
In § 20.201(a)(5), we would make clear that the filing of an alternate form or other communication does not extend, toll, or otherwise delay the time limit for filing an NOD. We would make clear that returning the incorrect VA form, including a form designed to appeal a different benefit, would not extend the deadline for filing an NOD. VA believes enforcing this policy is necessary in order to bring efficiency to appeals processing.
In proposed § 20.201(c), we would make clear that we do not propose to require a standardized form for simultaneously contested claims, which are claims in which the award of benefits to one person may result in the disallowance or reduction of benefits to another person. 38 CFR 20.3(p). Such claims arise only rarely and, irrespective of the nature of the benefit sought, they commonly present unique issues involving marital or other relationships of different individuals claiming entitlement to the same or similar benefits based on their relationship to the same veteran. Further, in 38 U.S.C. 7105A, Congress has prescribed a 60-day time limit for filing NODs in simultaneously contested claims. In view of these claims unique features, we do not propose to alter the governing standards. Moreover, because simultaneously contested claims constitute a very small portion of VA's appellate caseload, excluding those claims from the requirement to use standardized forms will not significantly affect the objectives of this rule. We, therefore, propose to state in new paragraph (c) of § 20.201 that the provisions of § 20.201(b) apply to simultaneously contested claims. However, claimants in simultaneously contested claims could use a standard VA form, when feasible, even though they would not be required to do so.
VA proposes the creation of two new sections in part 19. New § 19.23 would generally clarify which procedures apply to appeals governed by proposed § 20.201(a), and which apply to appeals governed by proposed § 20.201(b). New § 19.23(b) would clarify that current procedures in §§ 19.26 through 19.28 would continue to apply to appeals of benefits decisions governed by § 20.201(b), and new § 19.23(a) would make clear that these procedures would apply only to those cases. In other words, the provisions of §§ 19.26 through 19.28 would apply only to appeals of AOJ decisions relating to cases in which no standard form was provided by the AOJ for the purpose of initiating an appeal. New § 19.23(a) would clarify that the procedures in new § 19.24 would apply to appeals of AOJ decisions for cases in which the AOJ provides a form for the purpose of initiating an appeal, which are governed by § 20.201(a). By creating this new clarifying section, VA hopes to eliminate any confusion potentially caused by the fact that §§ 19.26 through 19.28 would no longer apply to the overwhelming majority of VA's appellate caseload, but must be retained for processing NODs relating to other benefits for which no standardized NOD form is provided.
In paragraph (a) of proposed new § 19.24, we would make clear that VA's practice of reexamining a claim whenever an NOD is received and determining if additional review or development is warranted would also apply to NODs submitted on standardized forms.
In paragraph (b) of proposed new § 19.24, we would outline procedures for when a claimant submits the correct form timely but incomplete. VA believes that the authority to require a claimant to use a particular form necessarily implies the authority to require that the form be completed, to include identifying each specific issue on which review of the AOJ decision is desired. VA strongly believes that, if veterans provide all information requested on the standardized VA form, this will lead to the fastest possible result for that individual veteran and the VA appellate system will work more efficiently for all veterans. Accordingly, if VA determines a form is incomplete, VA may require the claimant to timely file a completed version of the form.
In § 19.24(b)(1), we would describe the standard by which VA would determine whether or not a form to initiate an appeal is complete, both in general and for compensation claims in particular. In general, a claimant must provide all information the form requests in order for that form to be considered complete. In compensation claims, a form would be considered incomplete if it does not enumerate the issues or conditions for which appellate review is sought, and identify, in general terms, the nature of the disagreement. With respect to the nature of disagreement, the form used in the Houston RO pilot-directed claimants to indicate, for each appealed condition, whether they disagree with the AOJ's decision on the question of service connection, disability evaluation, effective date, and/or any other question. This information enables VA to more efficiently process appeals and avoid expending time and other resources on matters the claimant does not contest. We would also make clear that if a form enumerates some, but not all, of the issues or conditions which were the subject of the AOJ decision, the form would be considered complete with respect to the issues on appeal, and any issues or medical conditions not enumerated would not be considered appealed on the basis of the filing of that form. Of course, there is nothing to prevent a claimant from later filing a subsequent form initiating appeals of other issues within the AOJ decision, provided such an action is still timely.
We wish to clarify that it is not VA's intention to be overly technical in determining whether claimants have completed a form. The purpose of this rule is the orderly and efficient processing of veterans' claims and appeals, not the exclusion of legitimate appeals, and VA's decision to deem a form incomplete and request completion will be guided by this principle.
In § 19.24(b)(2), we would make clear that incomplete forms must be completed within 60 days from the date of VA's request for clarification, or the remainder of the period in which to initiate an appeal of the AOJ decision, whichever is later. VA proposes to provide this 60-day grace period in order to protect the claimant's rights in the event the statutory deadline has passed when VA determines the claimant has filed an incomplete form. Given that submission of the correct form would clearly identify to AOJ personnel that a claimant wishes to pursue an appeal, VA would accept the incomplete form for purposes of determining whether a claimant has met the statutory deadline. However, the claimant must complete the form within the 60-day timeframe. This time requirement would correspond to the 60-day period provided in 38 CFR 19.26(c) for clarification of an ambiguous NOD filed under the traditional process.
In § 19.24(b)(3), we would state that if the completed form arrives within the timeframe established in paragraph (b)(2), VA would treat the completed form as the NOD. This proposed rule would make clear that no action would be taken on the basis of the incomplete form. In particular, if the incomplete form does not enumerate specific issues on which the claimant wishes to initiate an appeal, and the completed form does, only those issues that are enumerated on the completed form would be considered as having been appealed. Any conditions or issues not identified on the completed form would not be considered appealed on the basis of the filing of the incomplete form.
In § 19.24(b)(4), we would state that if no completed form is received within the timeframe established in paragraph (b)(2), the decision of the AOJ shall become final. VA believes the policy embodied in proposed paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) is necessary to keep incomplete forms from becoming a significant exception to the standardization this rule is intended to achieve.
In proposed § 19.24(b)(5), we would make clear that if a form is so incomplete that the claimant to whom it pertains is unidentifiable, no action would be taken on the basis of the submission of that form and the form would be discarded. VA will always attempt to discern the claimant to whom the form pertains based on any statements or other information provided before discarding the form.
To ensure other regulatory sections that discuss NODs are consistent with these proposed changes, VA also proposes to make minor revisions to a few other sections. Specifically, VA proposes to revise § 3.2600, which discusses optional de novo review procedures at the AOJ after an NOD is filed, to cross reference the format and timeliness requirements of § 20.201, and either § 20.302(a) or § 20.501(a), as applicable, in the first sentence of paragraph (a). We also propose to revise § 20.3(c), which currently defines an appellant as “a claimant who has initiated an appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals by filing a Notice of Disagreement pursuant to the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 7105.” Since 38 U.S.C. 7105 only requires that an NOD be submitted in writing, VA proposes to revise 38 CFR 20.3(c) to cross reference the proposed format requirements in § 20.201, and the timeliness requirements of either § 20.302(a) or § 20.501(a), as applicable. VA believes this revision would ensure that there is no confusion regarding what requirements a claimant must follow to submit a valid NOD. Similarly, § 20.200 currently provides, in part, that an appeal includes “a timely filed Notice of Disagreement in writing.” VA proposes to revise § 20.200 to replace “in writing” with cross references to § 20.201, and either § 20.302(a) or § 20.501(a), as applicable.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement, unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule includes provisions constituting collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3521) that require approval by OMB.
Comments on the collections of information contained in this proposed rule should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 or emailed to
The Department considers comments by the public on proposed collections of information in:
• Evaluation whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The collections of information contained in 38 CFR 3.154, 3.155, 3.812, and 20.201 are described immediately following this paragraph, under their respective titles.
• 2900–0791 (VA Form 21–0958)—This form will be used by claimants to indicate a disagreement with a decision issued by a Regional Office to initiate an appeal.
• 2900–0001 (VA Form 21–526 and 21–526b)—These forms are used to gather the necessary information to determine a veteran's eligibility, dependency, and income, as applicable, for the compensation and/or pension benefit sought without which information would prevent a determination of entitlement;
• 2900–0743 (VA Form 21–526c)—This form is used to gather necessary information from service members filing claims under the Benefits Delivery at Discharge or Quick Start programs under Title 38 U.S.C. 5101(a) used in a joint effort between VA and Department of Defense (DoD) for the expeditious process of determining entitlement to compensation disability benefits;
• 2900–0002 (VA Form 21–527)—This form is used to gather the necessary information to determine a veteran's eligibility and dependency, as applicable, for disability pension sought without which information would prevent a determination of entitlement;
• 2900–0004 (VA Form 21–534)—This form is used to gather necessary information to determine the eligibility of surviving spouses and children for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), death pension, accrued benefits and death compensation;
• 2900–0004 (VA Form 21–534a)—This form is used to gather necessary information to determine the eligibility of surviving spouses and children of veterans who died while on active duty service for DIC, death pension, accrued benefits, and death compensation;
• 2900–0005 (VA Form 21–535)—This form is used to gather necessary information to determine a parent's eligibility, dependency and income, as applicable, for the death benefit sought; and
• 2900–0747 (VA Forms 21–526EZ, 21–527EZ, and 21–534EZ)—These forms are used to gather the necessary information to determine a veteran's eligibility, dependency, and income, as applicable, for the compensation and/or pension and disability pension and to determine the eligibility of surviving spouses, children and parents for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), death pension, accrued benefits and death compensation as well as other benefits.
• 2900–0572 (VA Form 21–0304—This form is used to gather the necessary information to determine eligibility for the monetary allowance and the appropriate level of payment for a child with spina bifida who is the natural child of a veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era and for a chld with certain birth defects who is the natural child of a female veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era.
• 2900–0721 (VA Form 21–2680)—This form is used to gather the necessary information to determine eligibility for the aid and attendance and/or household benefit.
• 2900–0067 (VA Form 21–4502)—This form is used to gather the necessary information to determine if a veteran or serviceperson is entitled to an automobile allowance and adaptive equipment.
• 2900–0390 (VA Form 21–8924)—This form is used to gather the necessary information to determine if the application meets the Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors (REPS) program which pays VA benefits to certain surviving spouses and children of veterans who died in service prior to August 13, 1981 or who died as a result of a service-connected disability incurred or aggravated prior to August 13, 1981.
• 2900–0404 (VA Form 21–8940)—This form is used to gather the necessary information to determine whether individual unemployability benefits may be paid to a veteran who has a service-connected disability(ies) which result in an inability to secure or follow substantially gainful occupation.
• 2900–0132 (VA Form 26–4555)—This form is used to gather the necessary information to determine the eligibility for the Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) or Special Housing Adaptations (SHA) benefits for disabled veterans or servicemembers.
• 2900–0791 (VA Form 21–0958)—Veterans or claimants who indicate disagreement with a decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) will use VA Form 21–0958 in order to initiate the appeals process. The veteran or claimant may or may not continue with an appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA). If the veteran or claimant opts to continue to BVA for an appeal, this form will be included in the claim folder as evidence.
• 2900–0001 (VA Form 21–526 and 21–526b)—Veterans or claimants who express an intent to file for disability compensation and/or pension benefit may continue to use VA Form 21–526. Veterans or claimants who express an intent to file for disability compensation for an increased evaluation, service connection for a new disability, reopening of a previously denied disability, or for a disability secondary to an existing service connected disability or for other ancillary benefits such as aid and attendance, automobile allowance, spousal aid and attendance, or other benefit may continue to use VA Form 21–526b.
• 2900–0743 (VA Form 21–526c)—Service members filing claims under the Benefits Delivery at Discharge or Quick Start programs under Title 38 U.S.C. 5101(a) may continue to use VA Form 21–526c for disability compensation benefits.
• 2900–0002 (VA Form 21–527)—Veterans who are reapplying for VA pension benefits or previously applied for VA compensation benefits and are now applying for VA pension benefits may continue to use VA Form 21–527.
• 2900–0004 (VA Form 21–534 and 21–534a)—Claimants such as surviving spouses and children filing for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), death pension, accrued benefits, and death compensation claims may continue to use VA Form 21–534. Military Casualty Assistance Officers who are assisting suriving spouses and children in filing claims for death benefits may continue to use VA Form 21–534a.
• 2900–0005 (VA Form 21–535)—Claimants who are filing for benefits subsequent to the death of the veteran may continue to use VA Form 21–535.
• 2900–0747 (VA Forms 21–526EZ, 21–527EZ, and 21–534EZ)—Veterans or claimants who are filing for disability compensation, pension, dependency and indemnity compensation, death pension, accured benefits and death compensation claims and other benefits such a ancillary benefit claims and entitlement to 38 U.S.C. 1151 benefits that filed for processing in both the traditional claims system or in the
• 2900–0572 (VA Form 21–0304)—Claimants who are filing for the monetary allowance and payment for a child with spina bifida who is the natural child of a veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era and for a child with certain birth defects who is the natural child of a female veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era may continue to use VA Form 21–0304.
• 2900–0721 (VA Form 21–2680)—Claimants who are filing for eligibility for the aid and attendance and/or household benefit may continue to use VA Form 21–2680.
• 2900–0067 (VA Form 21–4502)—Veterans or servicepersons who are filing for entitlement to an automobile allowance and adaptive equipment may continue to use VA Form 21–4502.
• 2900–0390 (VA Form 21–8924)—Certain surviving spouses and children of veterans who died in service prior to August 13, 1981 or who died as a result of a service-connected disability incurred or aggravated prior to August 13, 1981 under the Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors (REPS) program may continue to use VA Form 21–8924.
• 2900–0404 (VA Form 21–8940)—Claimants who file for individual unemployability benefits for service-connected disability(ies) which result in an inability to secure or follow substantially gainful occupation may continue to use VA Form 21–8940.
• 2900–0132 (VA Form 26–4555)—Disabled veterans or servicemembers who file for Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) or Special Housing Adaptations (SHA) benefits may continue to use VA Form 26–4555.
• 2900–0791 (VA Form 21–0958)—One time for most claimants; however, the frequency of responses is also dependent on the number of appeals submitted on this form by the claimant as VA does not limit the number of appeals that a claimant can submit.
• 2900–0001 (VA Form 21–526 and 21–526b)—One time for most beneficiaries; however, the frequency of responses is also dependent on the number of claims submitted on this form by the claimant as VA does not limit the number of claims that a claimant can submit.
• 2900–0743 (VA Form 21–526c)—One time for most beneficiaries; however, the frequency of responses is also dependent on the number of claims submitted on this form by the claimant as VA does not limit the number of claims that a claimant can submit.
• 2900–0002 (VA Form 21–527)—One time for most beneficiaries; however, the frequency of responses is also dependent on the number of claims submitted on this form by the claimant as VA does not limit the number of claims that a claimant can submit.
• 2900–0004 (VA Form 21–534 and 21–534a)—One time for most beneficiaries.
• 2900–0005 (VA Form 21–535)—One time for most beneficiaries.
• 2900–0747 (VA Forms 21–526EZ, 21–527EZ, and 21–534EZ)—One time for most beneficiaries; however, the frequency of responses is also dependent on the number of claims submitted on this form by the claimant as VA does not limit the number of claims that a claimant can submit.
• 2900–0572 (VA Form 21–0304)—One time for most beneficiaries.
• 2900–0721 (VA Form 21–2680)—One time for most beneficiaries.
• 2900–0067 (VA Form 21–4502)—One time for most beneficiaries.
• 2900–0390 (VA Form 21–8924)—One time for most beneficiaries.
• 2900–0404 (VA Form 21–8940)—One time for most beneficiaries.
• 2900–0132 (VA Form 26–4555)—One time for most beneficiaries.
• 2900–0791 (VA Form 21–0958)—30 minutes.
• 2900–0001 (VA Form 21–526 and 21–526b)—VA Form 21–526—1 hour; and VA Form 21–526b—15 minutes; and VA Form 21–4142—5 minutes.
• 2900–0743 (VA Form 21–526c)—15 minutes.
• 2900–0002 (VA Form 21–527)—1 hour.
• 2900–0004 (VA Form 21–534 and 21–534a)—VA Form 21–534—1 hour and 15 minutes and VA Form 534a—15 minutes.
• 2900–0005 (VA Form 21–535)—1 hour and 12 minutes.
• 2900–0747 (VA Forms 21–526EZ, 21–527EZ, and 21–534EZ)—VA Form 21–526EZ—25 minutes; VA Form 21–527EZ—25 minutes; and VA Form 21–534EZ—25 minutes.
• 2900–0572 (VA Form 21–0304)—10 minutes.
• 2900–0721 (VA Form 21–2680)—30 minutes.
• 2900–0067 (VA Form 21–4502)—15 minutes.
• 2900–0390 (VA Form 21–8924)—20 minutes.
• 2900–0404 (VA Form 21–8940)—45 minutes.
• 2900–0132 (VA Form 26–4555)—10 minutes.
• 2900–0791 (VA Form 21–0958)—144,000 per year as previously estimated in ICR Reference No. 201206–2900–001 and as published in the
• 2900–0001 (VA Form 21–526 and 21–526b)—304,325 per year, based on 5-year estimated average of formal and informal initial compensation and pension claims received annually at 83,855 and formal and informal new or reopened compensation claims received annually at 217,178, in addition to the historically reported annual estimated number of responses for VA Form 21–4142 at 3,292.
• 2900–0743 (VA Form 21–526c)—161,000 per year as previously estimated in ICR Reference No. 201209–2900–010 and as published in the
• 2900–0002 (VA Form 21–527)—17,111 per year, based on a 5-year estimated average of 12,253 reopened pension claims received on VA Form 21–527 in addition to an estimated number of 4,858 expected to be received for informal reopened pension claims.
• 2900–0004 (VA Form 21–534 and 21–534a)—33,864 per year, based on a 5-year estimated average of 32,438 formal and informal death benefits claims filed by surviving spouses/child in addition to a 5-year estimated number of 1,426 formal and informal death benefits claims filed by surviving spouses/child for in-service death.
• 2900–0005 (VA Form 21–535)—1,783 per year, based on a 5-year estimated average of 1,046 formal death benefits filed by parents in addition to an expected estimated number of informal death benefit claims at 737.
• 2900–0747 (VA Forms 21–526EZ, 21–527EZ, and 21–534EZ)—1,048,652 per year, based on: (a) An estimated number of both formal and informal—initial, new, reopened compensation claims at 835,910; plus (b) an estimated number of both formal and informal pension claims at 101,086; (c) an estimated number of both formal and
VA expanded a modified version of a pilot study, known as the Express Claim Program, for which VA Forms 21–526EZ and 21–527EZ were used. Therefore, the number of claimants expected to respond was estimated at 104,440. These EZ forms contain the section 5103 notification for disability, pension, and now death benefits in paper and electronic format. The electronic application uses the EZ form in its question prompts and generates this form upon completion of the interview process. Because this rule is structured to incentivize the electronic claims process, VA expects a substantial increase in the number of respondents for this particular Control Number.
• 2900–0572 (VA Form 21–0304)—430 per year.
• 2900–0721 (VA Form 21–2680)—14,000 per year.
• 2900–0067 (VA Form 21–4502)—1,552 per year.
• 2900–0390 (VA Form 21–8924)—1,800 per year.
• 2900–0404 (VA Form 21–8940)—24,000 per year.
• 2900–0132 (VA Form 26–4555)—4,158 per year.
OMB Control Numbers 2900–0572, 2900–0721, 2900–0067, 2900–0390, 2900–0404, and 2900–0132 are collections of information for particular benefits such as automobile allowance, housing adaptation, individual unemployability, etc., which are currently required by the VA in order for these claims to be processed and adjudicated. Since VA requires these forms to be submitted for filing of a particular benefit, VA does not expect an increase in the annual likely number of respondents. In addition, VA is not changing the substance of the collection of information on these OMB-approved collections of information nor is it increasing the respondent burden. We are including these collections of information in this rulemaking because it is relevant to the rulemaking but is not directly altered by it.
• 2900–0791 (VA Form 21–0958)—Annual burden continues to be 72,000 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents continues to be $1,080,000 (72,000 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0001 (VA Form 21–526 and 21–526b)—For VA Form 21–526, the annual burden is 83,855 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents is $1,257,825 (83,855 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs. For VA Form 21–526b, the annual burden is 54,295 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents is $81,443 (54,295 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs. For VA Form 21–4142, the annual burden is 263 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents is $330 (263 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0743 (VA Form 21–526c)—Annual burden continues to be 40,250 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents continues to be $603,750 (40,250 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0002 (VA Form 21–527)—Annual burden is 17,111 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents is $256,665 (17,111 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0004 (VA Form 21–534 and 21–534a)—For VA Form 21–534, the annual burden is 40,548 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents is $608,220 (40,548 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs. For VA Form 21–534a, the annual burden is 357 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents is $5,355 (3,57 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0005 (VA Form 21–535)—Annual burden is 2,140 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents is $32,100 (2,140 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0747 (VA Forms 21–526EZ, 21–527EZ, and 21–534EZ)—For VA Form 21–526EZ, the annual burden is 348,296 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents is $55,224,440 (348,296 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs. For VA Form 21–527EZ, the annual burden is 42,119 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents is $631,785 (42,119 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs. For VA Form 21–534EZ, the annual burden is 46,523 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents is $697,845 (46,523 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0572 (VA Form 21–0304)—Annual burden continues to be 72 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents continues to be $1,080 (72 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0721 (VA Form 21–2680)—Annual burden continues to be 7,000 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents continues to be $105,000 (7,000 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0067 (VA Form 21–4502)—Annual burden continues to be 388 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents continues to be $5,820 (388 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0390 (VA Form 21–8924)—Annual burden continues to be 600 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents to be $9,000 (600 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0404 (VA Form 21–8940)—Annual burden continues to be 18,000 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents continues to be $270,000 (18,000 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
• 2900–0132 (VA Form 26–4555)—Annual burden continues to be 693 hours. The total estimated cost to respondents continues to be $10,395 (693 hours × $15/hour). This submission does not involve any recordkeeping costs.
This rulemaking is proposing to mandate the use of existing VA forms in the processing and adjudication of claims and appeals. The proposed amendments to §§ 3.154, 3.155, 3.812, and 20.201 affect the estimated annual number of respondents and consequently, the estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden but do not otherwise affect the existing collections of information that have already been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The proposed use of information, description of likely respondents, estimated frequency of responses, estimated average burden per response will remain unchanged for these forms. While there is no substantive change in the aforementioned collection of information for these proposed amendments, VA foresees a change in the quantity of information collected and the total annual reporting for certain currently approved OMB control numbers on account of this rulemaking.
Other than for original claims and certain ancillary benefits, VA historically and currently accepts claims for benefits in any format submitted, whether on a prescribed form or not. VA has never standardized the use of forms
Due to the fact that there is no current data enumerating the total number of different types of VA forms received annually, we have projected the annual number of respondents for the forms based on the estimated number of types of claims received annually over a 5-year period. We have also approximated the number of electronic claims received for compensation, pension, and death claims. Currently, VA's electronic claims processing system, i.e., eBenefits and Veterans Online Applications (VONAPP), uses VA Form 21–526EZ for disability compensation claims submitted electronically. VA is also in the process of adding other VA forms to VONAPP such as VA Form 21–527EZ and 21–534EZ (hereinafter “EZ forms” will be used to refer to VA Forms 21–526EZ, 21–527EZ, and 21–534EZ, collectively). VA also provides these EZ forms to claimants who wish to submit their claims on paper because these forms expedite the claims process by: (a) offering the claimant a choice for either the expedited process of “Fully Developed Claims” or the traditional claims process; (b) listing more detailed questions for a variety of benefits sought in order to capture thoroughly the specifics of a claim; and (c) providing claimants with the required notice of VA's duty to assist the claimant pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5103, which is issued at the time the claimant files a claim instead of when the VA receives the claim. The use of these EZ forms ultimately speeds up the claims process and ensures faster delivery of benefits to claimants; therefore, VA has encouraged, directed, and provided these EZ forms to claimants who wish to file benefit claims.
VA proposes to eliminate “informal claims” and require the submission of either a complete or incomplete electronic claim in proposed, revised § 3.155(b) as a placeholder for a potential earlier effective date. Only electronic claims will receive the possible earlier effective date for any awards granted; complete paper claims will receive the effective date based on the date of receipt by the VA. By incentivizing electronic claims processing through the authorization of a potential earlier effective date by this proposed rulemaking, VA expects the number of electronic claims to increase. Because eBenefits and VONAPP uses (and will continue to use) the EZ forms, we anticipate that the total number of annual responses received on the EZ forms electronically for all benefits will increase by at least 29 percent while the total number of annual response received on VA Forms 21–526, 21–526b, 21–527, 21–534, 21–534a, and 21–535 (“traditional forms”) will decrease. Based on data from Fiscal Year (FY) October 2010 through September 2011, the number of compensation disability claims received electronically was 142,899 and the number of total compensation disability and dependency claims received electronically was 496,851. Thus, the percentage of compensation disability electronic claims received was 29 percent. With VA's outreach and efforts to promote the electronic claims processing system and with future implementation of pension, death, and appeals electronic claims processing, VA estimates an increase of the submission of electronic claims by at least 29 percent based upon the FY 2010 through 2011 data. Since the trend is to direct claimants to submit claims on EZ forms both electronically and on paper, we approximate that 70 percent of claims will be submitted on the EZ form while 30 percent will be submitted on the traditional forms.
The data used in formulating the estimated number of annual responses to the various affected prescribed forms was extrapolated from data recorded for the number of types of claims received annually for FY April 2009 through April 2013. This data is not sufficiently granular to provide the number of informal claims received given that the data only depicts the number of initial, new or reopened compensation and pension claims received and the number of initial death benefit claims received. Since informal claims may or may not be submitted on a prescribed form, there is no method for accurately recording or quantifying the total number of informal claims received or inferred annually. Therefore, we approximate that for compensation, pension, and death benefits,, 50 percent of each of these benefits are informal claims. Thus, based on the data of an average of claims received over a 5-year period, we expect that the total number of informal claims for compensation, pension, and death benefits that will be submitted on a prescribed form will increase by at least 50 percent.
Previously, VA estimated that the annual number of respondents submitting the currently approved collection instrument, VA Form 21–0958,
We have formulated the estimated total of annual responses for compensation, pension, and death benefit claims by increasing the expected number of total claims submitted on paper by 50 percent from data extrapolated for claims received annually over a 5-year period. We project that 30 percent of compensation, pension, and death benefit claims will be submitted on traditional forms whereas 70 percent will be submitted on EZ forms. Accordingly, VA expects a decrease in the total estimated number of annual responses for VA Forms 21–526, 21–527, 21–534, 21–534a, and 21–535 whereas the total estimated number of annual responses for VA Forms 21–526EZ, 21–527EZ, and 21–534EZ have increased substantially. The projected numbers for each affected form are provided in further detail in the above section, “Estimated number of respondents,” according to each OMB Control Number.
The Secretary hereby certifies that these proposed regulatory amendments would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. These proposed amendments would not directly affect any small entities. Only VA beneficiaries and their survivors could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), these proposed amendments are exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by OMB, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates.
VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are 64.100, Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces; 64.101, Burial Expenses Allowance for Veterans; 64.102, Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans' Dependents; 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.105, Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses, and Children; 64.106, Specially Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death; 64.114, Veterans Housing-Guaranteed and Insured Loans; 64.115, Veterans Information and Assistance; 64.116,Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans; 64.117, Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance; 64.118, Veterans Housing-Direct Loans for Certain Disabled Veterans; 64.119, Veterans Housing-Manufactured Home Loans; 64.120, Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance; 64.124, All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance; 64.125, Vocational and Educational Counseling for Servicemembers and Veterans; 64.126, Native American Veteran Direct Loan Program; 64.127, Monthly Allowance for Children of Vietnam Veterans Born with Spina Bifida; and 64.128, Vocational Training and Rehabilitation for Vietnam Veterans' Children with Spina Bifida or Other Covered Birth Defects.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Interim Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 8, 2013, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Veterans.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR parts 3, 19, and 20 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
(p)
Claimants must file a complete claim on the appropriate paper or electronic form prescribed by the Secretary when applying for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 and 38 CFR 3.361. See §§ 3.151 and 3.400(i) concerning effective dates of awards.
38 U.S.C. 501 and 1151.
The provisions of this section are applicable to all claims governed by part 3 of this chapter.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Any communication or action indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, from a claimant, his or her duly authorized representative, a Member of Congress, or some person acting as next friend of a claimant who is not of full age or capacity that does not meet the standards of a complete claim;
(2) A communication indicating a belief in entitlement to benefits submitted on a paper form prescribed by the Secretary that is not complete; or
(3) An electronic mail, transmitted through VA's electronic portal or otherwise, that indicates an intent to apply for one or more benefits or a belief in entitlement to benefits under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs from a claimant, his or her duly authorized representative, a Member of Congress, or some person acting as next friend of a claimant who is not of full age or capacity, that does not meet the standards of a complete claim. Cross Reference: Effective dates. See § 3.400.
(a)
(1) A complete claim must be signed by the claimant or a person legally authorized to sign for the claimant.
(2) A complete claim must identify the benefit sought.
(3) For compensation claims, a description of any symptom(s) or medical condition(s) on which the benefit is based must be provided to the extent the form prescribed by the Secretary so requires.
(4) For a nonservice-connected disability or death pension and parents' dependency and indemnity compensation claims, a statement of income must be provided to the extent the form prescribed by the Secretary so requires.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) A claim for a new benefit unrelated to a currently awarded benefit such as service connection for a new or different disability from one for which service connection has already been awarded;
(2) A claim for a new or additional benefit directly related to a currently awarded benefit including, but not limited to, a request for entitlement of benefits based upon secondary service connection; or claims for aid and attendance, housebound, special monthly compensation or pension, special monthly dependency and indemnity compensation, death compensation, pension, spousal aid and attendance or housebound benefits, dependents benefits such as helpless child, specially adapted housing, special home adaptation, clothing allowance, or automobile allowance;
(3) Claims of clear and unmistakable error.
(e)
(f)
(1) The expiration of the period in which to file a notice of disagreement, pursuant to the provisions of § 20.302(a) or § 20.501(a) of this chapter, as applicable; or,
(2) Disposition on appellate review.
(g)
(h)
(1) An increased evaluation for a specific disability(ies);
(2) A claim for supplemental benefits such as aid and attendance, housebound, or special monthly compensation;
(3) A claim for an increased rating based on total disability based on individual unemployability, when not contained in the original claim.
(4) An increased evaluation for a specific service-connected disability(ies)
which is/are based on a claim for temporary total disability due to hospitalization of more than 21 days or due to surgical or other treatment requiring convalescence of at least one month;
(5) Request for resumption of payments previously discontinued.
(o) * * *
(2)
(e)
(f)
38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
(a) A claimant who has filed a Notice of Disagreement submitted in accordance with the provisions of § 20.201 of this chapter, and either § 20.302(a) or § 20.501(a) of this chapter, as applicable, with a decision of an agency of original jurisdiction on a benefit claim has a right to a review of that decision under this section. * * *
38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
(a) Appeals governed by § 20.201(a) of this chapter shall be processed in accordance with § 19.24 of this part. Sections 19.26, 19.27 and 19.28 of this part shall not apply to appeals governed by § 20.201(a) of this chapter.
(b) Appeals governed by § 20.201(b) of this chapter shall be processed in accordance with §§ 19.26, 19.27, and 19.28 of this part.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
38 U.S.C. 501(a) and as noted in specific sections.
(c)
An appeal consists of a timely filed Notice of Disagreement submitted in accordance with the provisions of § 20.201, and either § 20.302(a) or § 20.501(a) of this part, as applicable and, after a Statement of the Case has been furnished, a timely filed Substantive Appeal.
(a) Cases in which a form is provided by the agency of original jurisdiction for purpose of initiating an appeal.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(c)