Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Southwestern Power Administration
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of jamming/malfunctioning of the left-hand engine thrust control mechanism. This AD requires modifying the left-hand engine upper core-cowl. We are issuing this AD to prevent jamming/malfunctioning of the left-hand engine thrust control mechanism, which could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective September 25, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 25, 2012.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE–173, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228–7330; fax (516) 794–5531.
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. That NPRM was published in the
There have been several reported incidents of jamming/malfunctioning of the left hand (L/H) engine thrust control mechanism on the affected aeroplanes. The investigation has shown that an improperly stowed or dislodged upper core-cowl-door Hold Open Rod, can impede a Fuel Control Unit (FCU) function by obstructing the movement of the FCU actuating lever arm, hence rendering the L/H engine thrust control inoperable.
Due to the engine's orientation, the subject FCU fouling is limited only to the L/H engine installation on the affected twin engine powered aeroplanes; however the potential hazard of any in-flight engine shut down caused by jammed engine fuel control lever is a safety concern that warrants mitigating action.
In order to help alleviate the possibility of an in-flight engine shut down due to the subject fouling of the FCU lever by the core-cowl-door Hold Open Rod, Bombardier has issued a Service Bulletin (SB) to install a new bracket at the L/H engine upper core-cowl-door location. This [Canadian] directive is issued to mandate the incorporation of the SB 601R–71–033 on the affected aeroplanes.
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 (77 FR 20746, April 6, 2012) 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 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 (77 FR 20746, April 6, 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 20746, April 6, 2012).
We estimate that this AD will affect 601 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 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 will cost about $54 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 this AD to the U.S. operators to be $134,624, or $224 per product.
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 September 25, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 7003 through 7067 inclusive, 7069 through 7990 inclusive, and 8000 through 8112 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71: Powerplant.
This AD was prompted by reports of jamming/malfunctioning of the left-hand engine thrust control mechanism. We are issuing this AD to prevent jamming/malfunctioning of the left-hand engine thrust control mechanism, which could lead to 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.
Within 36 months or 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Modify the left-hand engine upper core-cowl, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R–71–033, dated August 24, 2011.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2011–38, dated October 19, 2011; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R–71–033, dated August 24, 2011; for related information.
(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 601R–71–033, dated August 24, 2011.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Bombardier 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 also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202–741–6030, or go to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding the Final Rule, Prevention of
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Division of Plant and Dairy Food Safety/Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–315), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Nancy Bufano, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–316), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–1493.
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents our current thinking on how to interpret the requirements in the final rule, including questions and answers on compliance dates; coverage; definitions; SE prevention measures; sampling and testing for SE; registration; and compliance and enforcement. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternate approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 118.5, 118.6, 118.10, and 118.11 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0660.
Interested persons may submit written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to final regulations.
This document corrects the final regulation (TD 9597) that was published in the
Michael Nixon (section 274), (202) 622–4930; or Lynne A. Camillo (section 61), (202) 622–6040 (not toll-free numbers).
The final regulation (TD 9597) that is the subject of this correction is under section 274 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, TD 9597 contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the publication of the final regulation (TD 9597) that was the subject of FR Doc. 2012–18693, is corrected as follows:
On page 45480, column 1, under the caption
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard has established a special local regulation and a safety zone for sailing events scheduled to occur on the waters of San Francisco Bay adjacent to the City of San Francisco waterfront in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz Island. This rule will revise the start time for enforcement on August 26, 2012, to 11:30 a.m. instead of noon. This
This rule is effective from August 21, 2012, until August 26, 2012.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG–2011–0551. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant DeCarol Davis, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399–7443 or email at
On July 17, 2012, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule regulating the on-water activities associated with the “2012 America's Cup World Series” regatta scheduled to occur August 21–26, 2012 (77 FR 41902). That rule created a special local regulation and safety zone to be enforced from noon until 5 p.m. on those days.
On August 11, 2012, the Coast Guard received notification from America's Cup Race Management (ACRM) that the race scheduled to occur on August 26, 2012, would begin 30 minutes earlier in order to maintain schedules for television coverage and broadcasting. Regulating on-water activities associated with the regatta during those 30 minutes is necessary to protect the public from the dangers posed by the high speeds of the sailing vessels operating during this media coverage. The time remaining before the scheduled August 26th race does not allow for public comment on this change. Publishing a rule is in the public's interest, however, to provide for the safety of mariners transiting the area and to notify the public of planned on-water activities. The timing of enforcement also was addressed in public comments the Coast Guard received and considered in development of the rule published on July 17, and based on those comments the Coast Guard believes that starting enforcement 30 minutes earlier on one day will not interfere with other waterway uses.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” For the reasons described above, the Coast Guard finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the public interest.
Similarly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Under 33 CFR 100.35, the Coast Guard District Commander has authority to promulgate certain special local regulations deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and immediately after an approved regatta or marine parade. The Commander of Coast Guard District 11 has delegated to the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco the responsibility of issuing such regulations. The COTP also has the authority to establish safety zones under 33 CFR 1.05–1(f) and 165.5.
From August 21–26, 2012, the City of San Francisco plans to host America's Cup World Series regattas as part of a circuit of sailing events being conducted at other U.S. and international venues. On July 17, 2012, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule establishing a special local regulation and temporary safety zone to govern these events from noon to 5 p.m. (77 FR 41902); however, the events on August 26, 2012, will start earlier to maintain the event's television broadcast schedule. To protect the public during this media coverage, the Coast Guard is revising the enforcement provisions of the July 17 rule to provide for enforcement from 11:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on August 26, 2012. This change is necessary to ensure the safety of mariners transiting the area from the dangers associated with the sailing events.
The location and restrictions of the special local regulation established at 33 CFR 100.T11–0551A and the safety zone established at 33 CFR 165.T11–0551 remain as they were published on July 17, 2012, and are not changed by this rule. The enforcement periods of both the special local regulation and the safety zone are revised to reflect enforcement from 11:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on August 26, 2012, instead of from noon until 5 p.m. as originally established. Enforcement on the other program days in 2012 and 2013 is not affected by this rule.
The effect of the special local regulation and temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the America's Cup sailing events. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep mariners and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the high-speed sailing vessels participating in America's Cup. Movement within marinas, pier spaces, and facilities along the City of San Francisco waterfront is not regulated by this rule.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive
Although this rule restricts navigation on San Francisco Bay, these restrictions will only be in place for an additional 30 minutes on one day, and are limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the special local regulation and safety zone at times when they are being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time; (ii) vessel traffic may pass safely around the area; (iii) vessel traffic may pass through the area with COTP approval; (iv) recreational vessel operators may use spaces outside of the affected areas; and (v) the maritime public will be advised in advance via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. These measures have been implemented during similar marine events such as Fleet Week and have been successful.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded this action does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A copy of the environmental assessment is available in the docket.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Waterways.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Parts 100 and 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(b)
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs three North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) bridges: The S.R. 74 Bridge, across the AIWW, mile 283.1 at Wrightsville Beach, NC; the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge across the Cape Fear River, mile 26.8; and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge across the Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 1.0; both in Wilmington, NC. The modification will alter the dates and times these bridges are allowed to remain in the closed position to accommodate the time and route change of the annual YMCA Tri Span 5K & 10K races.
This rule is effective September 20, 2012.
Comments and related materials received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG–2012–0193 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Terrance A. Knowles, Environmental Protection Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District; telephone (757) 398–6587, email
On May 1, 2012 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), at Wrightsville Beach, NC; Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear River, at Wilmington NC” in the
The YMCA Tri Span 5K and 10K races are annual events that are held in the Wrightsville Beach and Wilmington, NC areas. Recently, the Wilmington Family YMCA made a permanent change to both the time and route of the events. The races will continue to be held on the second Saturday of July of every year; however, the events will now begin and end an hour earlier (7 a.m. to 9 a.m.) and the race routes will now include the S.R. 74 Bridge. As a result, the Wilmington Family YMCA, on behalf of NCDOT, requested a change to the operating regulations for the S.R. 74 Bridge, the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge. This final rule allows the bridges to
The S.R. 74 Bridge is a double-leaf bascule drawbridge across AIWW, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC. It has a vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water in the closed position. The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is a vertical-lift bridge across the Cape Fear River, mile 26.8, at Wilmington, NC. It has a vertical clearance of 65 feet above mean high water in the closed position. The Isabel S. Holmes Bridge is a double-leaf bascule drawbridge with a vertical clearance of 40 feet at mean high water in the closed position.
The Coast Guard provided sixty days for review but received no comments on the NPRM. The Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR 117.821(a)(4) for the S.R. 74 Bridge, mile 283.1 at Wrightsville Beach, NC to allow the bridge to remain in the closed position from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the second Saturday of July of every year. The Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR 117.822 and 33 CFR 117.829(a)(4) for the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge, respectively, to allow the bridges to remain in the closed position from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the second Saturday of July of every year from the current closure times of 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on the second Saturday of July of every year. The amendments to these operating regulations will allow the bridges to remain in the closed position for the racers of the annual YMCA Tri Span 5K & 10K races to safely cross the bridges. The Coast Guard will issue Local Notices to Mariners and Broadcast Notices to Mariners every year to remind mariners of the annual closures which will allow them to plan their scheduled transits accordingly.
There are no alternative routes available to vessels transiting these waterways. Vessels that can transit under the bridges without an opening may do so at any time. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The changes are expected to have minimal impacts on mariners due to the short duration that the moveable bridges will be maintained in the closed position. The races have been reserved in years past with little to no impact to marine traffic. It is also a necessary measure to facilitate public safety that allows for the orderly movement of participants before, during, and after the races.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to transit any of the effected bridges from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the second Saturday of July of every year. This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule adds minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation and mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the scheduled bridge closures can minimize delay. Vessels that can safely transit under the bridges may do so at any time.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have
This rule meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) * * *
(4) S.R. 74 Bridge, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour; except that from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the second Saturday of July of every year, from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the third and fourth Saturday of September of every year, and from 7 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on the last Saturday of October of every year or the first or second Saturday of November of every year, the draw need not open for vessels due to annual races.
The draw of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, mile 26.8, at Wilmington need not open for the passage of vessels from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the second Saturday of July of every year, and from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the first or second Sunday of November of every year to accommodate annual races.
(a) * * *
(4) From 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the second Saturday of July of every year, from 12 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on the last Saturday of October or the first or second Saturday of November of every year, and from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the first or second Sunday of November of every year, the draw need not open for vessels to accommodate annual races.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM
This direct final rule is effective on October 22, 2012 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by September 20, 2012. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0153, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Richard Wong, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–8726. Mr. Wong can be reached via electronic mail at
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual PM
Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a state to develop and submit to EPA a SIP revision under title I, part D of the CAA. This SIP revision must include, among other elements, a demonstration of how the NAAQS will be attained in the nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date required by the CAA. Under CAA section 172(b), a state has up to three years after an area's designation as nonattainment to submit its SIP revision to EPA. For the 1997 annual PM
On April 4, 2008, Tennessee submitted an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, a 2002 base year emissions inventory and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM
EPA notes that a final determination of attainment would not suspend the emissions inventory requirement found in CAA section 172(c)(3), which requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. In today's action, EPA is approving the emissions inventory portion of the attainment demonstration SIP revision submitted by Tennessee on April 4, 2008, as required by section 172(c)(3).
As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to submit a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such areas. Tennessee selected 2002 as the base year for the emissions inventory per 40 CFR 51.1008(b). Emissions contained in Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision cover the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, and on-
The 172(c)(3) emissions inventory was developed by the incorporation of data from multiple sources. States were required to develop and submit to EPA a triennial emissions inventory according to the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule for all source categories (i.e., point, nonroad mobile, area, and on-road mobile). This inventory often forms the basis of data that are updated with more recent information and data that also are used in the attainment demonstration modeling inventory. Such was the case in the development of the 2002 base year emissions inventory that was submitted in Tennessee's attainment demonstration SIP for the Knoxville Area. The 2002 base year emissions inventory was based on data developed with the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) contractors and submitted by the VISTAS states (i.e., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia) to the EPA 2002 National Emissions Inventory. Several iterations of the VISTAS 2002 inventories were developed through the VISTAS project for the different emission source categories resulting from revisions and updates to the data. This resulted in the use of version G2 of the updated data to represent the point sources' emissions. Data from many databases, studies and models (e.g., Vehicle Miles Traveled, fuel programs, the NONROAD 2002 model data for commercial marine vessels, locomotives and Clean Air Market Division, etc.) resulted in the inventory submitted in this SIP revision. The VISTAS and Tennessee emissions inventory data were developed according to current EPA emissions inventory guidance titled “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (August 2005) and “Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule” (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and a quality assurance project plan that was developed through VISTAS and approved by EPA. EPA agrees that the process used to develop this inventory was adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and the implementing regulations.
EPA has reviewed the 2002 base year emissions inventory from Tennessee and determined that it is adequate for the purposes of meeting section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement. Further, EPA has determined that the emissions were developed consistent with the CAA, implementing regulations and EPA guidance for emissions inventories.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the attainment demonstration SIP revision submitted by the State of Tennessee on April 4, 2008. EPA determined that this action is consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 22, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Notice of final determination.
The State of New York (“New York”) has petitioned for approval of alternate odometer requirements. New York's petition, as amended, is granted.
New York's petition and comments are available for public inspection at the Docket Management Facility of the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Marie Choi, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202–366–1738) (Fax: 202–366–3820).
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
Federal odometer law, which is largely based on the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 (Cost Savings Act)
TIMA's motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements apply in a State unless the State has alternate requirements approved by the Secretary. The Secretary has delegated administration of the odometer program to NHTSA. Therefore, a State may petition NHTSA for approval of such alternate odometer disclosure requirements.
Seeking to replace an existing system of paper records for dealer inventories, transfers, and sales—including the transfer of titles and odometer disclosures—with an electronic system, New York has petitioned for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements. In its initial determination, NHTSA reviewed the statutory background and set out the agency's tentative view on applicable statutory factors governing whether to grant a state's petition. NHTSA determined that New York's initial petition
As part of its comments, New York submitted an amended petition.
NHTSA reviewed the statutory background of Federal odometer law in its consideration of petitions for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements by Virginia, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida, and New York.
In 1972, Congress enacted the Cost Savings Act to establish safeguards for consumers which prohibited odometer tampering. Among other things, the Cost Savings Act made it unlawful to alter an odometer's mileage, and required written disclosure of odometer mileage in connection with any transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle.
In 1986, Congress enacted TIMA to address the Cost Savings Act's shortcomings. Congress was specifically concerned with addressing odometer fraud in the commercial market, and noted that used car auctions, distributors, wholesales, dealers, and used car lots of new car dealers often may be directly involved in fraud.
In 1994, in the course of the recodification of various laws pertaining to the Department of Transportation, the Cost Savings Act, as amended, was repealed, reenacted, and recodified without substantive change.
In our final determinations, after notice and comment, granting the petitions for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements of Virginia, Texas, and, in part, Wisconsin and Florida, we identified the statutory purposes of TIMA.
One purpose of TIMA was to ensure that the form of the odometer disclosure precluded odometer fraud. The Cost Savings Act did not require odometer disclosures to be made on a vehicle's title. This created a potential for odometer fraud, because a transferor could easily alter the odometer disclosure or provide a new statement with different mileage.
A second purpose of TIMA was to prevent odometer fraud by processes and mechanisms making the disclosure of an odometer's mileage on the title a condition of the application for a title, and a requirement for the title to be issued by the State.
Third, TIMA sought to prevent alterations of disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes. Prior to TIMA, titles could be printed through non-secure processes, and could be easily altered or laundered.
A fourth purpose of TIMA was to create a record of the mileage on vehicles and a paper trail.
Finally, the general purpose of TIMA was to protect consumers by ensuring that they received valid representations of the vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer based on odometer disclosures.
New York, which is in the process of implementing an Electronic Vehicle Inventory and Transfer System (System), petitions for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements. New York requests alternate disclosure requirements for transfers of motor vehicles in transactions to, from, and among licensed New York dealers.
In New York, odometer disclosures are currently made on securely printed documents produced by NYSDMV. A Certificate of Title (MV–999), Retail Certificate of Sale (MV–50) (Dealers Re-assignment Form), and/or Wholesale Certificate of Sale (MV–50W) may be used depending on the circumstances of the transfer. In order to comply with Federal odometer disclosure requirements, all three documents include built-in security features including unique numbers, along with an area to disclose the odometer reading. The MV–999 has space for one odometer disclosure statement and is used where title is held by the transferor. If this space has been filled by an odometer disclosure statement in a prior transaction, New York dealers must use either the MV–50 or MV–50W reassignment document, as appropriate, to make the required odometer disclosure statement and transfer vehicle title.
Currently, in New York, dealers are required by NYSDMV to keep a paper inventory (Book of Registry) in which dealers record identifying information about vehicles they purchase and sell. NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law section 415(15); 15 NYCRR section 78.25. When a New York dealer sells a vehicle to another New York dealer, the purchasing dealer is required to enter the vehicle identifying information including the odometer disclosure statement in its Book of Registry. A dealer's Book of Registry is subject to review during on-site audits by NYSDMV.
When a New York dealer sells a vehicle to a purchaser, an MV–50/MV–50W is filled out with the vehicle identifying information, the name and address of the dealer, and the name and address of the purchaser. The dealer fills in the odometer disclosure statement found on the MV–50/MV–50W and then both the dealer and purchaser sign the statement. Odometer readings are recorded in the selling dealer's Book of Registry, the purchasing dealer's Book of Registry (if the purchaser is a New York dealer), and the MV–50, all of which are subject to audit by NYSDMV. In cases where the purchaser is not another New York dealer, the purchaser must take a copy of the MV–50, along with other ownership documentation provided by the dealer (e.g. original title, prior MV–50/MV–50Ws), and a completed Vehicle Registration/Title Application (MV–82) to a NYSDMV office to apply for a new title.
According to New York's initial petition, the System would control access to MV–50 processing. New York dealerships would access the System to enter inventory and record vehicle sales transactions, including making the odometer disclosure statements required under TIMA. Dealers would be required to join the System when they were due for business license renewal. Each licensed New York dealer would be required to renew its business license every two years.
To join the System, a dealer first would request access to the system from NYSDMV. NYSDMV would register the dealership as a group and designate a System administrator for that dealership (a dealership employee chosen by the dealer) to be responsible for assigning System accounts to employees (users) within the dealership.
Each year, the administrator would be prompted by the System to re-certify the facility on the System with the NYSDMV. If the administrator did not comply with the System recertification prompt, dealership access to the System would be turned off, preventing the dealership from completing any sales transactions. An entire dealership or an individual working at a dealership could be denied access to the System any time NYSDMV deemed it necessary. The System would be limited to New York dealer transactions, as others except for NYSDMV would not have access to it.
Under New York's proposal, if a vehicle were transferred to a dealership, the vehicle's identifying information would be entered into the System using a standardized template through a user's account. The vehicle identification number (VIN) would automatically be verified by the System using the appropriate Vehicle Identification Number Analysis (VINA) file. (VINA is a system used to verify and decode information contained in vehicle identification numbers.) If the vehicle were sold to another New York dealer, the purchasing dealer's System template for that vehicle would pre-fill with the vehicle's identification information from the System. During sales/transfer transactions, the seller would electronically disclose vehicle information including the current mileage and would be issued a unique transaction number.
Because it relies on dealers making entries into the system, New York's proposed Electronic Vehicle Inventory and Transfer System encompasses only transactions involving dealers.
NYSDMV's proposed process for handling vehicle transfers to and between licensed New York dealers would be as follows. When a dealer receives a vehicle (whether from a manufacturer, a customer, or another dealer) and vehicle ownership documentation, an authorized dealership user would sign on to the System and enter the vehicle's identifying information. The vehicle's odometer reading, disclosed on the title in the case of a consumer trading in or selling a vehicle to the dealer, would be recorded in the System by the dealer.
If a dealer sold a vehicle to another licensed New York dealer, the selling dealer would sign on to the System using its unique sign on and password and would access the vehicle's identifying information on the System. The selling dealer would enter current vehicle information including the current odometer reading and enter seller and purchaser information on the System. The System would then generate a transaction number. The purchasing dealer would sign on to the System using its unique sign on and password and would access the vehicle's identifying information on the System using the transaction number. The purchasing dealer would then review the vehicle's identifying information, including the odometer disclosure statement made by the selling dealer,
If, during the purchasing dealer user's review of the vehicle's identifying information on the System, the user did not agree with all of the information, the user could reject the transaction. Subsequent transfers between licensed New York dealers would be recorded in the same manner. It is the Agency's understanding that the entire history of the vehicle's identifying information entered into the System at each transfer would be maintained indefinitely on the System.
If a vehicle owned by a New York dealer were sold to an in-state or out-of-state retail purchaser, salvage dealer, auction house, or other non-dealer purchaser, an authorized user at the selling dealer would sign on to the System and access the vehicle information on the System. The selling dealer would enter current vehicle information including the current odometer reading, and would enter seller and purchaser information on the System.
Under the initial proposal (which New York later amended), a two-part sales receipt/odometer statement would be created on the System. The purchaser would then review the information, including the odometer statement, on a draft receipt displayed on the computer screen. If the purchaser agreed with the odometer statement and other information, the authorized dealer representative would save the data in the System and then print a two-part sales receipt. Both parties would then sign the odometer disclosure statement printed on each of the two parts of the receipt. The dealer would retain the dealer part of the receipt for its files. The purchaser would be given the purchaser's copy of the receipt along with the original title. If the purchaser did not agree with any of the information displayed on the dealer's computer screen,
New York's initial petition stated that during vehicle registration by a New York purchaser, NYSDMV staff would review the vehicle's data and odometer disclosures on New York's System. NYSDMV staff would compare the information in the System to the information on the paper ownership documents and the purchaser's copy of the aforementioned two-part receipt. This would verify the mileage reported on the paper documents. If a vehicle had gone in and out of New York State multiple times, New York's initial petition stated that the proposed system would show the New York State history for the vehicle, which would help to identify gaps in mileage and ownership.
In its initial determination, NHTSA restated the statutory purposes of the disclosure required by TIMA as amended. 76 FR 65487. NHTSA discussed New York's petition (
NHTSA stated that New York's alternate disclosure requirements did not meet the third purpose of preventing alternations of disclosure on titles and precluding counterfeit titles through secure processes, because the odometer disclosure statement printed by a New York dealer as part of a sale to a non-New York dealer would not be made by a secure process.
NHTSA further stated that New York's proposed program would not be
NHTSA discussed TIMA's overall purpose of protecting consumers by ensuring that they receive valid odometer disclosures representing a vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer. NHTSA stated that other than the portions of New York's proposed program related to the security of the odometer disclosure statement in the sale of a vehicle from a licensed New York dealer to an out-of-state buyer, New York's proposal likely would provide more protection for consumers than the current procedure.
NHTSA received two comments. The first was from the New York Division of Motorist Services (New York).
In its comment, New York first identifies portions of NHTSA's initial determination where NHTSA indicated that New York's program was not consistent with the third, fourth, and overall purposes of the disclosure required by TIMA. New York then amends its petition in a manner which it believes addresses NHTSA's concerns.
Initially, New York proposed using the same procedure for out-of-state transfers as in-state transfers. This proposal involved the issuance of a non-secure paper receipt, which would be used to title vehicles outside of New York. As explained in NHTSA's initial decision, the non-secure receipt is problematic. New York amended its petition.
Under New York's amended petition, the first stage of the transaction, where the dealer enters the vehicle's information into the system, is identical to the procedure described in New York's initial petition. However, in a sale of a vehicle to an out-of-state purchaser, the second stage of the transaction is different. New York now proposes that instead of using a two-part paper receipt, the selling dealer would use a secure paper MV–50 (Retail Certificate of Sale) to document the transaction. The dealer would indicate the mileage of the vehicle in the System and also indicate which uniquely numbered MV–50 was used for the transfer. Both parties would sign the MV–50. The dealer would retain one copy of the MV–50, and the purchaser would retain another copy. If the buyer went to title the vehicle outside of New York, the out-of-state department of motor vehicles could use the
New York amends its proposal with respect to transactions between New York purchasers and in-state, non-dealer purchasers only slightly. New York would continue using the two-part sales receipt, but amends its petition to require the two-part sales receipt to contain a statement advising purchasers that the receipt may only be used to register the vehicle in New York State.
NAAA represents hundreds of auto auctions. NAAA's comments are based on New York's initial petition.
NAAA comments that New York's proposed system creates a potential for odometer fraud and unnecessarily complicates the transfer of vehicles across state lines. NAAA states that the non-secure paper receipt, which is not generated by a secure process and is separate from the original title document, could be altered or counterfeited by an out-of-state buyer. NAAA also argues that the information gaps created by maintaining odometer information in two separate locations (electronically for New York dealers and on paper for everyone else) are a cause for concern. NAAA states that without a complete history of odometer information in one location, it will be difficult for out-of-state purchasers to identify potential odometer fraud. If title information is altered after a purchase is made from a New York dealer, a subsequent purchaser will not be able to ascertain the vehicle's odometer history without both the paper title and access to New York's System. NAAA states that this would be at odds with the purposes of TIMA, and that it could negatively affect interstate commerce and the value of vehicles titled in New York. Finally, NAAA states that New York's proposed system's susceptibility to odometer fraud, the existence of two separate titling processes, and the absence of a complete odometer history once a New York dealer vehicle is sold to a non-New York dealer may dissuade bidders from purchasing New York vehicles at auction. NAAA concludes that New York's system, as proposed, does not adequately address the issues created by the transfer of vehicles to non-New York dealers.
The Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA in 1986, contains a specific provision on approval of State alternative odometer disclosure programs. Subsection 408(f)(2) of the Cost Savings Act as amended by TIMA (now recodified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(d)) provides that NHTSA shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a
Neither New York's nor NAAA's comments dispute the relevant Cost Savings Act purposes set forth in NHTSA's initial determination. New York restates and applies the purposes of TIMA to its Amended Petition for Approval of Alternate Odometer Disclosure Requirements. NAAA does not challenge NHTSA's analysis of statutory purposes in the initial determination in its comment.
After careful consideration of the comments, as part of the agency's final determination, we adopt the purposes stated in the initial determination of New York's petition. 76 FR 65487.
Section 408(f)(2) of the Cost Savings Act sets forth the legal standard for approval of state alternate vehicle mileage disclosure requirements: NHTSA “shall” approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless NHTSA determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e) of section 408, as the case may be. In this section, we consider New York's program in light of the purposes of the disclosure required by subsection (d) of section 408,
One purpose is to ensure that the form of the odometer disclosure precludes odometer fraud. When title is held by the transferor, the disclosure must be contained on the title provided to the transferee and not on a separate document. In the case of a transferor of a vehicle in whose name the vehicle is not titled (e.g., the transferor of the vehicle is the transferee on the title) the odometer disclosure statement may be made on a secure reassignment document if the title does not have sufficient space for recording the additional disclosure.
New York's proposed alternate disclosure requirements satisfy this purpose. Under New York's amended petition, when an owner transfers ownership of a vehicle to a dealer, the odometer disclosure statement would be on the paper title. The dealer would input the vehicle's identifying information and odometer disclosure into the Electronic Vehicle Inventory and Transfer System. The odometer disclosure, including the names of the transferor and transferee, would be required. Thereafter the odometer disclosure statement would reside as an electronic record within the System that would be linked to the vehicle by the vehicle's VIN.
If a dealer transfers a vehicle to another licensed New York dealer, the selling dealer would sign on to the System using its unique sign on and password and would access the vehicle's identifying information on the System. The selling dealer would enter current vehicle information including the current odometer reading and would enter seller and purchaser information on the System. The System would then generate a transaction number. The purchasing dealer would use the transaction number to access the vehicle's information on the System, review the information, including the selling dealer's odometer disclosure statement, and accept or reject the transaction. If the transaction is accepted, the sale is completed and the odometer disclosure is recorded in the System. In essence, this is an electronic reassignment from one licensed dealer to another licensed dealer, using a transaction based approach in a secure computer system in which both the selling dealer and purchasing dealer sign off on the odometer disclosure.
When the vehicle is sold from a licensed New York dealer to a person or entity other than a licensed New York dealer, the dealer/seller enters the purchaser's identifying information and the odometer disclosure statement into the System. If the buyer agrees that the odometer disclosure in the System is accurate, the System creates a two part receipt that is signed by the selling dealer and purchaser. The paper title and one part of the receipt must be presented to a State motor vehicle titling and registration agency when the purchaser applies to title and register the vehicle.
New York's proposal meets the TIMA purpose of ensuring that the form of the odometer disclosure precludes odometer fraud. We note that New York's proposal involves a proper odometer disclosure on the title itself when the seller is the person in whose name the vehicle is titled. Following transfer of a vehicle to a New York dealer, when the vehicle is not re-titled in the name of the dealer, the proposed New York system would provide for odometer disclosures to be made electronically in a secure electronic system with sign offs by the seller and buyer instead of on the paper reassignment documents currently being used. In addition, the paper title with an odometer disclosure would be transferred to the transferee/purchasing dealer. This is comparable to paper reassignments employing a paper State title and paper State reassignment form. Ultimately, for sales from New York dealers to consumers and other non-dealer buyers, the odometer disclosure would be recorded in the State's electronic system and on a two-part receipt or MV–50 signed by both buyer and seller. The receipt or MV–50—a form of paper reassignment document—memorializes the electronic disclosure. This would accompany the initial title with an odometer disclosure.
A second purpose of TIMA is to prevent odometer fraud by processes and mechanisms making the disclosure of an odometer mileage on the title both a condition for the application for a title and a requirement for the title issued by the State. New York's proposed process satisfies this purpose. New York's proposed transfer process requires disclosure of odometer information on the paper title, at first sale from a titled owner to a New York licensed dealer, and electronically within the System in transfers between New York licensed dealers before the transaction can be completed. In addition, in sales from New York licensed dealers to non-dealer purchasers, the purchaser must present the prior paper title from the initial sale to the first dealer and the receipt of purchase with a mileage disclosure from the last dealer when applying for a vehicle title and registration. New York's proposal requires that the vehicle title from the initial owner in the process to the first dealer—with the odometer disclosure—be provided to the person purchasing the vehicle from the last dealer in the dealer chain. This original title—with an odometer disclosure—along with the buyer's part of the proposed two-part paper receipt and mileage disclosure must both be presented to state titling officials in order for the buyer to obtain a new title.
A third purpose of TIMA is to prevent alterations of disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes. The agency initially determined that New York's alternate disclosure requirements did not satisfy this purpose. However, in its comment, New York amended its petition. New York's proposal as amended is consistent with the third purpose of the disclosure required by TIMA.
When a vehicle is first transferred to a dealer, the transfer and required odometer disclosure statement are made using the vehicle's secure paper title
Upon final retail sale of a vehicle to an in-state consumer or other non-New York dealer entity, the odometer disclosure statement would be made electronically and on a two part paper receipt, one part of which is given to the new owner to use in obtaining a title. More particularly, the selling dealer would access the Electronic Vehicle Inventory and Transfer System and enter the odometer disclosure and the dealer's and buyer's information into the system. If the odometer reading entered was not lower than a prior entry, a two-part odometer statement and receipt would be created electronically. The purchaser would review the information on the receipt prior to the receipt being printed and verify the odometer disclosure statement on the receipt. If the purchaser accepted the information, then the two-part sales receipt would be printed and both parties would sign the odometer disclosure statement printed on each part of the receipt. The dealer would retain the dealer part of the receipt for its files and the purchaser would be given the purchaser part of the receipt along with the original ownership document. Prior to registering and titling the vehicle in the new purchaser's name, NYSDMV's System, which would have the odometer reading, would check the information on the paperwork submitted by the purchaser (i.e. the paper receipt and title) against the information in the System.
Sales to out-of-state purchasers would mirror sales to in-state purchasers up to the point of printing a two-part sales receipt. Instead of a two-part sales receipt, the dealer would use a secure MV–50 form to document the transaction. The MV–50 form is printed using a secure printing process, and each MV–50 form bears a unique identification number. When transferring a vehicle, a dealer would indicate which uniquely numbered MV–50 form was being used for the transfer in the system. Both parties would complete and sign the MV–50, and the dealer and purchaser would each retain a copy of the MV–50. New York controls the distribution and use of MV–50 forms and requires dealers to account for every MV–50 they receive. 15 NYCRR § 78.10. We are satisfied that New York's proposal, as amended, is consistent with the purpose of preventing alterations of disclosures on titles and precluding counterfeit titles through secure processes. New York's amendment of its program from a non-secure paper receipt to the secure MV–50 also addresses concerns raised in NAAA's comment that the paper receipt could be altered or counterfeited by an out-of-state buyer.
A fourth purpose of TIMA is to create a record of the mileage on vehicles and a paper trail. The underlying purposes of this record and paper trail are to enable consumers to be better informed and provide a mechanism through which odometer tampering can be traced and violators prosecuted. We initially determined that New York's alternate disclosure requirements did not satisfy this purpose. In response, New York amended its petition.
Under New York's proposal, creation of a paper trail starts with the requirement that the initial transfer to a dealer is processed on the vehicle's secure paper title, including the odometer disclosure statement. Each subsequent dealer-to-dealer transfer is processed electronically, with the selling dealer inputting the vehicle's identifying information into the System, and the purchasing dealer verifying and certifying this information to complete the transfer. Under New York's proposed program, the most recent vehicle odometer disclosure would be available for public view via an online application. A dealer selling a vehicle to a non-dealer would record the odometer statement in the System at the time of sale. A selling dealer would also be required to transfer the paper title obtained from the first seller to the purchasing dealer or retail and/or out of state buyer.
For ultimate sales to New Yorkers, the final retail purchaser would be required to present paperwork (including the title containing an executed odometer disclosure statement used to transfer title of the vehicle from the initial owner to a New York dealer and, if appropriate, one copy of the receipt generated by the System when the dealer transferred the vehicle to the purchaser) to the NYSDMV when applying to register and title the vehicle in the purchaser's name. The NYSDMV would use this paperwork in conjunction with the vehicle's identifying information available on the System to verify the trail of ownership and odometer disclosure statements for the vehicle through the final retail sale. The paper title used to transfer the vehicle to the dealer would be retained by the NYSDMV in a file associated with the vehicle's VIN for at least ten years, and it would be available to dealers, NYSDMV, and enforcement staff. The System would maintain the vehicle identifying information, including odometer disclosure, indefinitely. The NYSDMV could track the odometer disclosure statements through the System. The System would not allow a transfer to be completed in which the disclosed odometer reading was lower than a prior odometer disclosure statement. In addition, New York's petition states that it would not issue a title to the buyer unless the disclosures on the foregoing paper documents matched those found in the System.
In those cases in which a New York dealer sells a vehicle to a person who would title and register it out-of-state, as described in the amended petition, the buyer would be provided with the title used to transfer it initially to a dealer and a MV–50 containing the odometer disclosure. A dealer would be required to annotate the unique MV–50 number from the MV–50 being used for the transaction in New York's System. This would create a paper trail linking the electronic records to the paper MV–50 given to the out-of-state buyer. Both parties would receive a copy of the MV–50, which could be authenticated outside of New York by using a
In NHTSA's view, New York's proposed program, as amended, would create a scheme of records equivalent to the current “paper trail” that assists law enforcement in identifying and prosecuting odometer fraud. Use of a secure MV–50 form whose unique identification number is recorded in the System adds a level of security that was lacking in New York's initial proposal, as it would be executed in out-of-state transfers. New York could use the MV–50 form to document in-state transfers in lieu of the non-secure paper receipt as well. Accordingly, New York's program as amended is consistent with the fourth purpose of the disclosure required by TIMA.
TIMA's overall purpose is to protect consumers by ensuring that they receive valid odometer disclosures representing a vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer. New York's proposed alternate disclosure requirements, as amended are consistent with this purpose. New York's proposed alternate disclosure requirements include characteristics that would ensure that representations of a vehicle's actual mileage would be as valid as those found in current paper title transfers and reassignments. Transfers of vehicles between licensed New York dealers, including the required odometer disclosure statements, would be processed and the records maintained electronically in the System. Transfer records would be maintained on the System. The paper title used for the initial transfer to a licensed New York dealer would follow the vehicle and would be required when applying for registration and titling of the vehicle in the final purchaser's (not a licensed New York dealer's) name. Potential buyers could examine the most recent odometer disclosure statement online before purchasing the vehicle. Mileage disclosures made on paper receipts for in-state transfers would be checked against information in the System. Out-of-state transfers would be documented on a secure MV–50 form, which could be verified outside New York, and which would be linked to a particular transaction by a unique MV–50 identification number.
NAAA commented that New York's proposal was susceptible to fraud and that the absence of a complete odometer history would dissuade bidders from purchasing New York vehicles at auction. We note that New York stated in its initial petition that it would make a Web application available to in-state and out-of-state purchasers, which would allow purchasers to verify New York State odometer history by entering a vehicle's VIN.
For the foregoing reasons, and upon review of the entire record, the agency concludes that New York's proposed alternate disclosure requirements, as amended, are consistent with the purposes of the disclosure required by TIMA and its amendments. NHTSA hereby issues a final determination granting New York's amended petition for requirements that apply in lieu of the federal requirements adopted under section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act. Other requirements of the Cost Savings Act continue to apply in New York. NHTSA reserves the right to rescind this grant in the event that information acquired after this grant indicates that, in operation, New York's alternate requirements do not satisfy one or more applicable requirements.
49 U.S.C. 32705; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for commercial king mackerel in the western zone of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) through this temporary final rule. NMFS has determined that the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) (equal to the commercial quota) for king mackerel in the western zone of the Gulf EEZ will have been reached by August 22, 2012. Therefore, NMFS closes the western zone of the Gulf to commercial king mackerel fishing in the EEZ. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource.
The closure is effective noon, local time, August 22, 2012, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 1, 2013.
Susan Gerhart, 727–824–5305, email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the western zone is 1,180,480 lb (535,457 kg) (76 FR 82058, December 29, 2011), for the current fishing year, July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.49(h)(1)(i) and 50 CFR 622.43(a)(3) require NMFS to close the commercial sector for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the western zone when the ACL (quota) is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. Based on the best scientific information available, NMFS has determined the commercial ACL (commercial quota) of 1,180,480 lb (535,457 kg) for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the western zone will be reached by August 22, 2012. Accordingly, the western zone is closed effective noon, local time, August 22, 2012, through June 30, 2013, the end of the fishing year to commercial fishing for Gulf group king mackerel. The Gulf group king mackerel western zone begins at the United States/Mexico border (near Brownsville, Texas) and continues to the boundary between the eastern and western zones at 87°31.1′ W. long., which is a line directly south from the Alabama/Florida boundary.
Except for a person aboard a charter vessel or headboat, during the closure, no person aboard a vessel for which a commercial permit for king mackerel has been issued may fish for or retain Gulf group king mackerel in the EEZ in the closed zones or subzones. A person aboard a vessel that has a valid charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in or from the closed zones or subzones under the bag and possession limits set forth in 50 CFR 622.39(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2), provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. A charter vessel or headboat that also has a commercial king mackerel permit is considered to be operating as a charter vessel or headboat when it carries a passenger who pays a fee or when there are more than three
During the closure, king mackerel from the closed zone, including those harvested under the bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to trade in king mackerel from the closed zones or subzones that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the western zone of the Gulf to commercial king mackerel fishing constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule implementing the commercial ACL (commercial quota) and the associated requirement for closure of the commercial harvest when the ACL (quota) is reached or projected to be reached has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure.
Additionally, allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of “other rockfish” in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the 2012 total allowable catch of “other rockfish” in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 16, 2012, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2012.
Obren Davis, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2012 total allowable catch (TAC) of “other rockfish” in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 606 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2012 TAC of “other rockfish” in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that “other rockfish” caught in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of “other rockfish” in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 15, 2012.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed rule; request for public comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is proposing to amend Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and the official interpretation to the regulation, which interprets the requirements of Regulation B. The proposed revisions to Regulation B would implement an ECOA amendment concerning appraisals that was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). In general, the proposed revisions to Regulation B would require creditors to provide free copies of all written appraisals and valuations developed in connection with an application for a loan to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling. The proposal also would require creditors to notify applicants in writing of the right to receive a copy of each written appraisal or valuation at no additional cost.
Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2012, except that comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis in part VIII of the Supplementary Information must be received on or before October 22, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB–2012–0032 or RIN 3170–AA26, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
John H. Brolin, Counsel, or William W. Matchneer, Senior Counsel, Division of Research, Markets, and Regulations, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC. 20552, at (202) 435–7000.
In response to the recent mortgage crisis, Congress amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to require creditors to automatically provide applicants with a copy of appraisal reports and valuations prepared in connection with certain mortgage loans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is now proposing a rule to implement those changes, which were enacted in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).
• Cover applications for credit to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling.
• Require creditors to notify applicants within three business days of receiving an application of their right to receive a copy of written appraisals and valuations developed.
• Require creditors to provide applicants a copy of all written appraisals and valuations promptly after receiving an appraisal or valuation, but in no case later than three business days prior to consummation of the mortgage.
• Permit applicants to waive the timing requirement to receive copies three days prior to consummation. However, applicants who waive the timing requirement must still be given a copy of all written appraisals and valuations at or prior to closing.
• Prohibit creditors from charging additional fees for providing a copy of written appraisals and valuations, but permit creditors to charge applicants a reasonable fee to reimburse the creditor for the cost of the appraisal or valuation unless otherwise required by law.
The ECOA
Historically, section 701(e) of ECOA has provided that a credit applicant has the right to request copies of appraisal reports used in connection with his or her application for mortgage credit. The right to request copies of appraisals was added to ECOA in December 1991 as part of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA).
With the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act,
Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act after a cycle of unprecedented expansion and contraction in the mortgage market sparked the most severe U.S. recession since the Great Depression.
Sections 1471 through 1474 of the Dodd-Frank Act established a number of new requirements for appraisal activities, including requirements relating to appraisal independence, appraisals for higher-risk mortgages, regulation of appraisal management companies, automated valuation models, and providing copies of appraisals and valuations.
Section 1474 of the Dodd-Frank Act
• A creditor shall furnish to an applicant a copy of any and all written appraisals and valuations developed in connection with the applicant's application for a loan that is or would be secured by a first lien on a dwelling. The appraisal documentation must be provided promptly, and in no case later than three days prior to closing of the loan, whether the creditor grants or denies the applicant's request for credit or the application is incomplete or withdrawn. However, the applicant may waive the timing requirement that such appraisals or valuations be provided three days prior to closing, except where otherwise required by law.
• The creditor shall provide a copy of each written appraisal or valuation at no additional cost to the applicant, though the creditor may impose a reasonable fee on the applicant to reimburse the creditor for the cost of the appraisal.
• At the time of application, the creditor shall notify applicants in writing of the right to receive a copy of each written appraisal and valuation under ECOA section 701(e).
Amended ECOA section 701(e)(6) defines the term “valuation” as including “any estimate of the value of a dwelling developed in connection with a creditor's decision to provide credit, including those values developed pursuant to a policy of a government sponsored enterprise or by an automated valuation model, a broker price opinion, or other methodology or mechanism.”
On the same day that this proposal is released by the Bureau, the Bureau is also releasing a proposal to implement section 1471 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which added new appraisal requirements for higher-risk mortgages that are subject to joint implementation by the Board, Bureau, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC). This provision, which is codified in new TILA section 129H(d), contains disclosure requirements that are similar to ECOA section 701(e) in that creditors must provide consumers, at least three days prior to closing, a copy of any appraisal prepared in connection with a higher-risk mortgage. 15 U.S.C. 1639h(c). Creditors must also provide consumers, at the time of the initial mortgage application, a statement that any appraisal prepared for the mortgage is for the creditor's sole use and that the consumer may choose to have a separate appraisal conducted at his or her own expense.
In addition to this proposal and the higher-risk mortgage rulemaking discussed above, the Bureau currently is engaged in six other rulemakings relating to mortgage credit to implement requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act:
•
•
•
•
•
•
With the exception of the requirements being implemented in the TILA–RESPA proposal, the Dodd-Frank Act requirements referenced above generally will take effect on January 21, 2013, unless final rules implementing those requirements are issued on or before that date and provide for a different effective date. To provide an orderly, coordinated, and efficient comment process, the Bureau is generally setting the deadlines for comments on this and other proposed mortgage rules based on the date the proposal is issued, instead of the date the notice is published in the
The Bureau regards the foregoing rulemakings as components of a larger undertaking; many of them intersect with one or more of the others. Accordingly, the Bureau is coordinating carefully the development of the proposals and final rules identified above. Each rulemaking will adopt new regulatory provisions to implement the various Dodd-Frank Act mandates described above. In addition, each of them may include other provisions the Bureau considers necessary or appropriate to ensure that the overall undertaking is accomplished efficiently and that it ultimately yields a regulatory scheme for mortgage credit that achieves the statutory purposes set forth by Congress, while avoiding unnecessary burdens on industry.
Thus, many of the rulemakings listed above involve issues that extend across two or more rulemakings. In this context, each rulemaking may raise concerns that might appear unaddressed if that rulemaking were viewed in isolation. For efficiency's sake, however, the Bureau is publishing and soliciting comment on proposed answers to certain issues raised by two or more of its mortgage rulemakings in whichever rulemaking is most appropriate, in the Bureau's judgment, for addressing each specific issue. Accordingly, the Bureau urges the public to review this and the other mortgage proposals identified above, including those previously published by the Board, together. Such a review will ensure a more complete understanding of the Bureau's overall approach and will foster more comprehensive and informed public comment on the Bureau's several proposals, including provisions that may have some relation to more than one rulemaking but are being proposed for comment in only one of them.
The Bureau has conducted consumer testing relating to implementation of ECOA section 701(e) requirements in conjunction with the 2012 TILA–RESPA Proposal. A more detailed discussion of the Bureau's overall testing and form design can be found in the report
In January 2011, the Bureau contracted with a communication, design, consumer testing, and research firm, Kleimann Communication Group, Inc. (Kleimann), which specializes in consumer financial disclosures. The Bureau and Kleimann developed a plan to conduct qualitative usability testing, consisting of one-on-one cognitive interviews, over several iterations of prototype integrated disclosure forms. Between January and May 2011, the Bureau and Kleimann worked collaboratively on developing a qualitative testing plan, and several prototype integrated forms for the disclosure to be provided in connection with a consumer's application (
In addition, the Bureau launched an initiative to obtain public feedback on each round of prototype disclosures at the same time it conducted the qualitative testing of the prototypes, which it titled “Know Before You Owe.”
From May to October 2011, Kleimann and the Bureau conducted a series of five rounds of qualitative testing on revised iterations of integrated disclosure prototype forms. This testing was conducted in five different cities across different U.S. Census regions and divisions: Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; Springfield, Massachusetts; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. After each round, Kleimann analyzed and reported to the Bureau on the results of the testing. Based on these results and feedback received from the Bureau's Know Before You Owe public outreach project, the Bureau revised the prototype disclosure forms for the next round of testing.
As part of the larger Know Before You Owe public outreach project, the Bureau tested two versions of the new appraisal-related disclosures required by both TILA section 129H and ECOA section 701(e).
The Bureau is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to its authority under ECOA, and the Dodd-Frank Act. On July 21, 2011, section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the Bureau all of the “consumer financial protection functions” previously vested in certain other Federal agencies, including the Board.
Section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Bureau to prescribe rules “as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof[.]” 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1). Section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act prescribes certain standards for rulemaking that the Bureau must follow in exercising its authority under section 1022(b)(1). 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2).
Section 1405(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of [title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act], in order to improve consumer awareness and understanding of transactions involving residential mortgage loans through the use of disclosures, the [Bureau] may, by rule, exempt from or modify disclosure requirements, in whole or in part, for any class of residential mortgage loans if the [Bureau] determines that such exemption or modification is in the interest of consumers and in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 1601 note. Section 1401 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended TILA section 103(cc), 15 U.S.C. 1602(cc), generally defines residential mortgage loan as any consumer credit transaction that is secured by a mortgage on a dwelling or on residential real property that includes a dwelling other than an open-end credit plan or an extension of credit secured by a consumer's interest in a timeshare plan. Notably, the authority granted by section 1405(b) applies to “disclosure requirements” generally, and is not limited to a specific statute or statutes.
Section 703(a) of ECOA authorizes the Bureau to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of ECOA. Section 703(a) further states that such regulations may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any class of transactions, that in the judgment of the Bureau are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of ECOA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate or substantiate compliance. 15 U.S.C. 1691b(a). Pursuant to this authority, the Bureau proposes to implement the amended ECOA appraisal provision. 15 U.S.C 1691(e). The proposed rule would amend existing § 1002.14 of Regulation B.
This proposal would implement amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act to ECOA that require, among other things, that creditors provide applicants with free copies of any and all written appraisals and valuations developed in connection with an application for a loan to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling. The Bureau is proposing to implement these new requirements through amendments to existing § 1002.14 of Regulation B.
Currently, § 1002.14(a) of Regulation B sets forth the general requirement that
As discussed in more detail below, proposed § 1002.14(a)(1) would set forth the general requirement to provide copies of written appraisals and valuations to applicants for credit to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling, and would set forth the timing and waiver requirements for providing such copies. Proposed § 1002.14(a)(2) would require that a creditor provide a written disclosure of the applicant's right to receive a copy of such written appraisals and valuations. Proposed § 1002.14(a)(3) would prohibit creditors from charging the applicant for providing a copy of written appraisals and valuations, but would permit creditors to require applicants to pay a reasonable fee to reimburse the creditor for appraisals and valuations. Proposed § 1002.14(a)(4) would clarify that the requirements of § 1002.14(a)(1) apply regardless of whether credit is extended or denied, or if the application is incomplete or withdrawn. Proposed § 1002.14(a)(5) would allow for the copies required by § 1002.14(a)(1) to be provided in electronic form. As is discussed in more detail below, proposed § 1002.14(b) would define certain terms used in proposed § 1002.14(a).
Current comment 14(a)(2)(i)–1 addresses the notice requirements if the application subject to § 1002.14 involves more than one applicant. The Bureau is proposing to renumber current comment 14(a)(2)(i)–1 as proposed comment 14(a)–1, and to make a conforming change so that the comment accurately refers to the disclosure about copies of written appraisals and valuations rather than to a notice about the appraisal report. In addition, the proposed comment would be amended to clarify that the comment also applies to the requirement to provide copies of written appraisals and valuations. Accordingly, the proposed comment would clarify that if there is more than one applicant, the notice about the written appraisals and valuations, and the copies of written appraisals and valuations, need only be given to one applicant, but it must be given to the primary applicant where one is readily apparent.
Consistent with ECOA section 701(e)(1), proposed § 1002.14(a)(1) would require a creditor to provide an applicant a copy of all written appraisals and valuations developed in connection with an application for credit that is to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling. The scope of proposed § 1002.14(a)(1) differs in several important respects from current § 1002.14(a). First, consistent with new ECOA section 701(e)(1), the proposed amendments to § 1002.14(a)(1) would broaden scope of the current requirement to provide copies of “an appraisal report” to include “all written appraisals and valuations developed.” Thus, more types of documents developed to value properties would be covered.
At the same time, the amendments made to ECOA section 701(e)(1) also narrow the types of transactions that are covered by subsection (e). Specifically, the proposed rule would apply to applications for credit to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling. In contrast, current § 1002.14(a) applies to applications for credit secured by a first lien or a subordinate lien on a dwelling. Accordingly, proposed § 1002.14(a)(1) would also add the word “first” to § 1002.14(a) to narrow the scope of the proposed rule to cover only loans secured by a first lien on a dwelling, consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to section 701(e) of ECOA.
Current comments 14(a)–1 and 14(a)–2 clarify the applicability of the appraisal delivery requirements to credit for business purposes and renewals. The proposal would generally retain comments 14(a)–1 and 14(a)–2 (renumbered as comments 14(a)(1)–1 and 14(a)(1)–2), with several conforming and technical changes. Specifically, proposed comment 14(a)(1)–1 would include an updated cross-reference to the definition of “dwelling” that, as discussed below, is proposed to be moved to § 1002.14(b)(2). In addition, proposed comment 14(a)(1)–1 would be narrowed to cover only loans secured by a first lien on a dwelling, consistent with proposed § 1002.14(a)(1). Thus, proposed comment 14(a)(1)–1 would provide that § 1002.14(a)(1) covers applications for credit to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling, as that term is defined in § 1002.14(b)(2), whether the credit is business credit (
Proposed comment 14(a)(1)–2 would generally be consistent with current comment 14(a)–2. However, proposed comment 14(a)(1)–2 would use the statutory term “developed” provided in new ECOA section 701(e)(1) in place of the term “obtained” throughout the comment. Thus, proposed comment 14(a)(1)–2 would provide that § 1002.14(a)(1) applies when an applicant requests the renewal of an existing extension of credit and the creditor develops a new written appraisal or valuation. In addition, the proposed comment would also provide that § 1002.14(a) does not apply when a creditor uses the appraisals or valuations that were previously developed in connection with the prior extension of credit in order to evaluate the renewal request.
The Bureau requests comment on whether additional guidance is needed on the application of the requirements of proposed § 1002.14(a)(1) in the case of renewals for consumer or business purpose transactions.
The Bureau is proposing to adopt a new comment 14(a)(1)-3 that would clarify that for purposes of § 1002.14, a “written” appraisal or valuation includes, without limitation, an appraisal or valuation received or developed by the creditor: in paper form (hard copy); electronically, such as by CD or email; or by any other similar media. In addition, the proposed comment clarifies that creditors should look to § 1002.14(a)(5) regarding the provision of copies of appraisals and valuations to applicants via electronic means. The Bureau believes that its proposed interpretation of the term “written” best serves the purposes of the statute, because consumers would receive free copies of appraisals and valuations regardless of whether the creditor receives, prepares or stores these materials in paper or electronic form.
Proposed § 1002.14(a)(1) would clarify that a creditor must provide a copy of each written appraisal or valuation subject to § 1002.14(a)(1) promptly (generally within 30 days of receipt by the creditor), but not later than three business days prior to
In addition, for clarity and to be consistent with other similar regulatory requirements under TILA and RESPA, the proposed rule would use the term “consummation” in place of the statutory term “closing” and clarify that the statutory term “days” means “business days.”
ECOA section 701(e)(2) provides that an applicant may waive the three-day requirement provided in ECOA section 701(e)(1), except where otherwise required in law. The Bureau believes that the “3 day requirement” referenced in the statute refers to the timing requirement to provide a copy of an appraisal or valuation three business days prior to closing, as opposed to the general requirement to provide copies of all appraisals and valuations. Specifically, the Bureau believes that a creditor is required to provide a copy of an appraisal or valuation developed promptly (generally within 30 days) even if the application is denied, incomplete, withdrawn, or the applicant waives the three day requirement. In addition, because creditors who order or conduct an appraisal or valuation require it to be completed before consummation of the transaction, the Bureau believes that a creditor should always be required to provide an applicant a copy of written appraisals and valuations by the date of consummation of the transaction. Accordingly, proposed § 1002.14(a)(1) provides that, notwithstanding the other requirements in § 1002.14(a)(1), an applicant may waive the timing requirement to receive a copy of an appraisal or valuation three business days prior to consummation and agree to receive the copy at or before consummation, except as otherwise prohibited by law.
Proposed comment 14(a)(1)–4 would clarify that § 1002.14(a)(1) permits the applicant to waive the timing requirement that written appraisals and valuations be provided no later than three business days prior to consummation if the creditor provides the copy at or before consummation, except as otherwise provided by law. In addition, the proposed comment would provide that an applicant's waiver is effective under § 1002.14(a)(1) if the applicant provides the creditor an affirmative oral or written statement waiving the 3-day timing requirement. Finally, the proposed comment would provide that if there is more than one applicant for credit in the transaction, any applicant may provide the statement.
Section 1474 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended ECOA section 701(e) to mandate that copies of appraisals and valuations be provided regardless of whether the consumer affirmatively requests such copies. Accordingly, for consistency with the statute, the Bureau is proposing to delete current § 1002.14(a)(1) and (a)(2), which permit creditors to choose between the “routine delivery” and “delivery upon request” methods of complying with the requirements of § 1002.14.
The Board's 1993 Final Rule on Providing Appraisal Reports (1993 Final Rule) provided an exemption from the appraisal delivery requirements in § 1002.14 for credit unions.
Under 12 CFR 701.31(c)(5), Federal credit unions are still required to make available to any requesting member/applicant a copy of the appraisal used in connection with that member's real estate-related loan application. However, the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to ECOA section 701(e) substantially alter the requirements on creditors to provide appraisals. Specifically, section 1474 of the Dodd-Frank Act expanded the scope of the requirements of ECOA section 701(e) to require creditors to provide copies of all valuations, and to eliminate the need for applicants to request copies. In addition, neither section 1474 of the Dodd-Frank Act nor the legislative history refers to an exception for credit unions subject to, and complying with, the provisions of the NCUA regulations relating to making appraisals available upon request. Accordingly, as proposed, § 1002.14 would delete the exemption for credit unions in current § 1002.14(b).
The Bureau requests comment on the removal of this exemption and whether there are additional factors the Bureau should take into consideration relating to the application of proposed § 1002.14 to credit unions.
Consistent with ECOA section 701(e)(5), proposed § 1002.14(a)(2) provides that for applications subject to § 1002.14(a)(1), a creditor shall provide an applicant with a written disclosure, not later than the third business day after the creditor receives an application, of the applicant's right to receive a copy of all written appraisals and valuations developed in connection with such application.
Title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act added two new appraisal related disclosure requirements for consumers. New section 701(e)(5) of ECOA, which is implemented in this proposed rule provides: “At the time of application, the creditor shall notify an applicant in writing of the right to receive a copy of each written appraisal and valuation under this subsection.” 15 U.S.C. 1691(e)(5). Similarly, section 129H(d) of TILA provides:
At the time of the initial mortgage application, the applicant shall be provided with a statement by the creditor that any appraisal prepared for the mortgage is for the sole use of the creditor, and that the applicant may choose to have a separate appraisal conducted at the expense of the applicant.
15 U.S.C. 1639h(d). In the absence of regulatory action to harmonize the two provisions, creditors would be required to provide two appraisal-related disclosures to consumers for certain loans (
The Bureau believes that Congress intended the ECOA and TILA disclosures to work together to provide consumers a better understanding of their rights in the appraisal process. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to exercise its authority under section 703(a) of ECOA and section 1405(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act to amend form C–9 in Regulation B to include the language developed to satisfy the new appraisal-related disclosure requirements of both ECOA and TILA. The proposed sample disclosure language differs from the express statutory language provided in section 701(e)(5). However, based on the results of the testing described above, the Bureau believes that the additional explanatory text is necessary to promote consumer comprehension and to reduce any confusion associated with the TILA appraisal notification that will also have to be given to applicants for higher-risk mortgage loans. The Bureau believes this approach will also reduce compliance burden for industry by allowing a single disclosure to satisfy both statutory requirements. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the proposed sample notice language developed to satisfy the disclosure requirements of both TILA and ECOA serves the interests of consumers, the public, and creditors. The Bureau requests comment on the proposed language and whether additional changes should be made to the text of the notification to further enhance consumer comprehension.
In addition, the Bureau notes that the model language in proposed Form C–9 refers only to appraisals, while proposed § 1002.14(a)(2) refers to “all written appraisals and valuations.” The Bureau solicits comment on what, if any, adjustments or clarifications to Form C–9 would be appropriate for creditors that perform valuations rather than, or in addition to, appraisals.
ECOA section 701(e)(5) requires creditors to notify applicants in writing, at the time of application, of the right to receive a copy of each written appraisal and valuation. The Bureau proposes to interpret the phrase “at the time of application” to require creditors to provide the ECOA appraisal disclosure no later than three business days after receiving an application. Proposed § 1002.14(a)(2) would require creditors to notify applicants in writing, not later than the third business day after a creditor receives such application, of the right to receive a copy of all written appraisals and valuations developed in connection with such application.
This approach is consistent with the disclosure requirements of TILA and RESPA.
The Bureau believes this approach is warranted because providing the disclosure to applicants at the same time as other similar disclosures—and possibly as part of a broader integrated disclosure document—would allow consumers to read the notification in context with other important information that must be delivered not later than the third business day after the creditor receives the application. Such an approach could reduce the number of pieces of paper that consumers receive and facilitate compliance by creditors.
The Bureau requests comment on whether providing the disclosure at some other time would be more beneficial to consumers, and how the disclosure should be provided where an application is submitted by phone, fax or electronically. For example, the Bureau solicits comment on whether it would be appropriate to require that creditors provide the disclosure at the same time the application is received, or even as part of the application.
The Bureau also seeks comment on the effective date if the Bureau were to finalize the proposal to include the new appraisal disclosure in the TILA–RESPA Loan Estimate. Because the 2012 TILA–RESPA Proposal likely will not be finalized on the same timeline as this proposal, creditors would likely have to revise their current ECOA disclosures to reflect the new language and distribute the disclosures as standalone forms until such time as the TILA–RESPA integrated disclosures must be provided. The Bureau believes that the burden involved would be modest since the forms are currently typically provided as standalone documents and do not require complicated dynamic systems programming to generate. The Bureau believes it is important for consumers to begin receiving information about their rights under ECOA with respect to receiving copies of appraisals. The Bureau therefore is not proposing to delay implementation of the disclosure requirement, as it is with some other mortgage-related disclosures required by the Dodd-Frank Act that the Bureau is proposing to implement as part of the integrated TILA–RESPA forms.
Consistent with ECOA sections 701(e)(3) and 701(e)(4), the proposed rule would remove current comment 14(a)(2)(ii)–1, which permits creditors to charge photocopy and postage costs incurred in providing a copy to the applicant. ECOA sections 701(e)(3) and 701(e)(4) address creditors' ability to charge certain fees relating to appraisals and valuations. Section 701(e)(3) affirms that creditors may require applicants to pay reasonable fees to reimburse the creditor for the cost of the appraisal, except where otherwise required in law. Section 701(e)(4) provides that notwithstanding this ability, however, creditors shall provide a copy of each written appraisal or valuation at no additional cost to the applicant.
The Bureau interprets the two provisions to permit creditors to charge
In addition, the proposed regulation affirms that creditors may impose fees to reimburse the costs of both valuations and appraisals. Although ECOA section 701(e)(3) does not expressly refer to valuations, the reference to both appraisals and valuations in 701(e)(4) regarding the provision of copies creates ambiguity as to congressional intent. The Bureau believes that there is both consumer and industry benefit to affirming that creditors may charge reasonable fees for reimbursement for all types of property valuations. Absent such clarification, the statutory language might be read as implicitly forbidding creditors from charging reimbursement fees for obtaining valuations, such as broker-price opinions or automated valuation models. The Bureau does not believe that Congress intended such a result, which could create an incentive for creditors to favor full appraisals over less costly forms of valuation that may be equally appropriate in particular circumstances.
To the extent necessary, the Bureau relies on the authority provided in ECOA section 703(a) to provide adjustments and exceptions for any class of transactions in proposing to interpret section 701(e)(3) of ECOA as permitting creditors to charge applicants a reasonable fee to reimburse the creditor for the cost of developing an appraisal or valuation, except as otherwise provided by law. Such an adjustment effectuates the purposes of ECOA by permitting creditors to charge applicants for less costly forms of valuations that may be utilized in certain low dollar value transactions, and then pass those savings on to loan applicants. For example, the Federal banking agencies do not require federally insured financial institutions to obtain an appraisal in low risk real estate-related financial transactions in which the transaction value is $250,000 or less.
Proposed comment 14(a)(3)–1 would provide examples of the specific types of charges that are prohibited under the regulation, such as photocopying fees and postage for mailing a copy of written appraisals or valuations.
Proposed comment 14(a)(3)–2 would clarify that § 1002.14(a)(3) does not prohibit creditors from imposing fees that are reasonably designed to reimburse the creditor for costs incurred in connection with obtaining actual appraisal or valuation services, so long they are not increased to cover the costs of providing documentation under § 1002.14. The Bureau does not read ECOA section 701(e)(3) as an attempt to create a proscriptive rate regime for all valuation-related activities. The Bureau notes that where Congress believed direct regulation of the amount of fees in connection with appraisal activities was required, it specified standards in the Dodd-Frank Act.
To further clarify the statutory language stating that creditors' ability to seek reimbursement for the cost of the appraisal does not apply “where otherwise required in law,” proposed comment 14(a)(3)–2 also notes that other sources of law may separately prohibit creditors from charging fees to reimburse the costs of appraisals, and are not overridden by section 701(e)(3). For instance, section 1471 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires creditors to obtain a second interior appraisal in connection with certain higher-risk mortgage loans, but prohibits creditors from charging applicants for the cost of the second appraisal. TILA section 129H(b)(2)(B); 15 U.S.C. 1639h(b)(2)(B).
The Bureau requests comment on the proposed text and whether additional guidance is needed to comply with the requirements of proposed § 1002.14(a)(3).
Consistent with ECOA section 701(e)(1), proposed § 1002.14(a)(4) would provide that the requirements of § 1002.14(a)(1) apply whether credit is extended or denied or if the application is incomplete or withdrawn. This language would expand on the language in current § 1002.14(a)(1), which already requires that creditors using the routine delivery option of compliance provide copies of appraisal reports “whether credit is granted or denied or the application is withdrawn.” Specifically, under the proposed rule creditors would also be required to provide copies of appraisals and valuations in situations where an applicant provides only an incomplete application.
Section 1002.4(d)(2) of Regulation B currently provides that the disclosures required to be provided in writing by this part may be provided to the applicant in electronic form, subject to compliance with the consumer consent and other applicable provisions of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act) (15 U.S.C. 7001
Proposed § 1002.14(b) would set forth three definitions, discussed below. The Bureau requests comment on whether there are additional terms that should be defined for purposes of this rule, and how best to define those terms in a manner consistent with ECOA section 701(e).
As discussed above, for clarity and to be consistent with other similar regulatory requirements under TILA and RESPA, proposed § 1002.14(a)(1) would use the term “consummation” in place of the statutory term “closing.” In addition, the proposed rule would define the term “consummation” in a manner that mirrors the definition of the term provided in § 1026.2(a)(13) of Regulation Z. 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(13). Accordingly, proposed § 1002.14(b)(1) would define the term “consummation” as the time that a consumer becomes contractually obligated on a credit transaction.
Proposed comment 14(b)(1)–1 would clarify that when a contractual obligation on the consumer's part is created is a matter to be determined under applicable law; § 1002.14 does not make this determination. A contractual commitment agreement, for example, that under applicable law binds the consumer to the credit terms would be consummation. Consummation, however, does not occur merely because the consumer has made some financial investment in the transaction (for example, by paying a nonrefundable fee) unless, of course, applicable law holds otherwise.
Proposed comment 14(b)(1)–2 would clarify that consummation does not occur when the consumer becomes contractually committed to a sale transaction, unless the consumer also becomes legally obligated to accept a particular credit arrangement.
Proposed § 1002-1.14(b)(2) would retain the definition of the term “dwelling” in current § 1002.14(c). Specifically, proposed § 1002.14(b)(2) would define the term “dwelling” as a residential structure that contains one to four units whether or not that structure is attached to real property. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) further provides that the term “dwelling” includes, but is not limited to, an individual condominium or cooperative unit, and a mobile or other manufactured home.
Consistent with ECOA section 701(e)(6), proposed § 1002.14(b)(3) defines “valuation” as any estimate of the value of a dwelling developed in connection with a creditor's decision to provide credit. The commentary to the proposed rule would include the list of examples provided in ECOA section 701(e)(6).
Proposed comment 14(b)(3)–1 would amend current comment 14(c)–1 to provide the following examples of valuations:
• A report prepared by an appraiser (whether or not certified and licensed), including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the person's estimate or opinion of the property's value.
• A document prepared by the creditor's staff that assigns value to the property, if a third-party appraisal report has not been used.
• An internal review document reflecting that the creditor's valuation is different from a valuation in a third party's appraisal report (or different from valuations that are publicly available or valuations such as manufacturers' invoices for mobile homes).
• Values developed pursuant to a methodology or mechanism required by a government sponsored enterprise, including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the estimate of the property's value.
• Values developed by an automated valuation model, including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the estimate of the property's value.
• A broker price opinion prepared by a real estate broker, agent, or sales person, including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the estimate of the property's value.
The Bureau requests comment on whether this list should include other examples of valuations. In addition, the Bureau requests comments on whether additional clarification is needed about what types of information would not constitute a valuation for purposes of § 1002.14.
The Bureau understands that many documents prepared in the course of a mortgage transaction may contain information regarding the value of a dwelling, but are not themselves a written appraisal or valuation. The Bureau does not believe that consumers would benefit from being given duplicative information concerning written appraisals and valuations. Additionally, it is important for creditors to be able to easily distinguish between documents that must be provided to applicants and those that are not required to be provided. Accordingly, proposed comment 14(b)(3)–2 would amend current comment 14(c)–2 to clarify that not all documents that discuss or restate a valuation of an applicant's property constitute “written appraisals and valuations” for purposes § 1002.14(a)(1). In addition, the proposed comment would provide the following list of examples of documents that discuss the valuation of the applicant's property but nonetheless are not “written appraisals and valuations:”
• Internal documents, that merely restate the estimated value of the dwelling contained in a written appraisal or valuation being provided to the applicant.
• Governmental agency statements of appraised value that are publically available.
• Valuations lists that are publically available (such as published sales prices or mortgage amounts, tax assessments, and retail price ranges) and valuations such as manufacturers' invoices for mobile homes.
The Bureau requests comment on whether this list of examples is too broad or whether additional examples should be included and why.
In developing the proposed rule, the Bureau has considered potential benefits, costs, and impacts to consumers and covered persons,
The proposed rule would amend Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the official interpretation to the regulation, which interprets the requirements of Regulation B. The proposed revisions to Regulation B would implement an Equal Credit Opportunity Act amendment concerning appraisals and other valuations that was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In general, the proposed revisions to Regulation B would require creditors to provide free copies of all written appraisals and valuations developed in connection with an application for a loan to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling. The proposal also would require creditors to notify applicants in writing of the right to receive a copy of each written appraisal or valuation at no additional cost.
Section 1022 permits the Bureau to consider the benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule solely compared to the state of the world in which the statute takes effect without an implementing regulation. To provide the public better information about the benefits and costs of the statute, however, the Bureau has chosen to consider the benefits, costs, and impacts of the major provisions of the proposed rule against a pre-statutory baseline (
The Bureau has relied on a variety of data sources to analyze the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule. However, in some instances, the requisite data are not available or quite limited. Data with which to quantify the benefits of the proposed rule are particularly limited. As a result, portions of this analysis provide a qualitative discussion of the benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule, relying instead in part on general economic principles to provide insight into these benefits, costs, and impacts.
The primary source of data used in this analysis comes from data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).
The proposed rule would change the process of obtaining a copy from one where the consumer must request one to one where the copy is given as the default. This would likely result in more consumers obtaining copies of their valuations since, despite low transaction costs, there is evidence that default rules can have significant effects on outcomes in various settings.
Individual consumers engage in real estate transactions infrequently, so developing the expertise to value real estate is costly and consumers often rely on experts, such as real estate agents, and list prices to make price determinations. These methods may not lead a consumer to an accurate valuation of a property. For example, there is evidence that real estate agents sell their own homes for significantly more than other houses, which suggests that sellers may not be able to accurately price the homes that they are selling.
Under the proposed rule, covered persons would incur the paperwork costs, for a set of applications and originations, of replicating and sending (either electronically or physically) copies of the appraisals and valuations.
To measure these paperwork costs, counts of originations and applications for reporting depository institutions and credit unions are obtained from the HMDA data; for non-HMDA reporters, counts are imputed using accepted statistical techniques that allow estimates based on the data available in Call reports.
Covered persons would also incur some costs in reviewing the proposed rule and in training the relevant employees.
The total costs from the proposed rule are approximately $14 million or just under $1.70 for each loan originated. The bulk of these costs arise from the paperwork requirements; roughly ten percent results from the one-time review and training costs.
Since the proposed rule, which largely codifies existing practice, is limited to relatively low cost clerical tasks and does not require the creditor to obtain any additional goods or services, the proposed rule is not likely to have an appreciable impact on the cost of credit for consumers or on loan volumes.
For smaller depository institutions, those with total assets of $10 billion or less, the proposed rule is estimated to cost $4.6 million. Because of their smaller size, fixed training and reviewing costs are spread over fewer applications and originations and as a result, the average cost would increase slightly; for each loan these institutions originate, the cost is estimated to be roughly $1.80.
The Bureau does not anticipate that the proposed rule would have a unique impact on consumers in rural areas.
In addition to the comment solicited elsewhere in this proposed rule, the Bureau requests commenters to submit data and to provide suggestions for additional data to assess the issues discussed above and other potential benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule. The Bureau also requests comment on the use of the data described above. Further, the Bureau seeks information or data on the proposed rule's potential impact on consumers in rural areas as compared to consumers in urban areas. The Bureau also seeks information or data on the potential impact of the proposed rule on depository institutions and credit unions with total assets of $10 billion or less as described in Dodd-Frank Act section 1026 as compared to depository institutions and credit unions with assets that exceed this threshold and their affiliates.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would amend Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the official interpretation to the regulation, which interprets the requirements of Regulation B. The proposed revisions to Regulation B would implement an Equal Credit Opportunity Act amendment concerning appraisals and other valuations that was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In general, the proposed revisions to Regulation B would require creditors to provide free copies of all written appraisals and valuations developed in connection with an application for a loan to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling. The proposal also would require creditors to notify applicants in writing of the right to receive a copy of each written appraisal or valuation at no additional cost.
The empirical approach to calculating the impact the proposed regulation has on small entities subject to its requirements utilizes the same data and methodology outlined in the previous section. The analysis that follows focuses on the economic impact of the proposed rule, relative to a pre-statute baseline, for small depository institutions, credit unions and non-depository independent mortgage banks (IMBs).
The Small Business Administration classifies commercial banks, savings institutions, credit unions, and other depository institutions as small if they have assets less than $175 million, and classifies other real estate credit firms as small if they have less than $7 million in annual revenues.
Of the roughly 17,747 depository institutions, credit unions, and IMBs, 13,106 are below the relevant small entity thresholds. Of these, 9,807 are estimated to have originated mortgage loans in 2010. The Bureau has loan counts for credit unions and HMDA-reporting DIs and IMBs. For IMBs, the Bureau only has data on revenues for 560 of 2515 institutions. In order to estimate the number of these institutions that have less than $7 million in revenues the Bureau uses an accepted statistical techniques (“nearest neighbor matching”) to impute revenues from the MCR.
Although most depository institutions, credit unions, and IMBs are affected by the proposed rule, the burden estimates below show that the proposed rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,. As discussed above, the economic impacts include preparing and sending copies of appraisals and other valuations and the costs of reviewing the rule and training employees.
Consistent with the assumptions in the analysis of the previous section, the Bureau believes, based on its outreach, that currently it is routine business practice for appraisals to be sent to consumers for all first lien transactions that result in an origination and that copies of appraisals and valuations conducted for applications that do not result in a loan are not sent to consumers. The Bureau also believes that a second appraisal is typically conducted, and is sent, for any property with a loan size equal to or above $600,000. Further, appraisals are considered to be of inadequate quality 10% of the time, necessitating a second appraisal.
Under these assumptions, the total costs for small depository institutions and credit unions of providing copies of the appraisals or valuations and any one-time costs for reviewing the regulation and training employees are estimated to be roughly $2.70 per loan originated. For small IMBs, the costs are estimated to be just under $2.00 per loan originated. In both cases, the higher average costs reflect the greater importance of the fixed costs of training for smaller institutions as one-time costs are spread over fewer mortgage originations at these entities. Nevertheless, across all small entities, the costs of the rule amount to a small
Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau requests comment on the analysis above and requests any relevant data.
The Bureau's information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule, and identified as such, have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title of this information collection is ECOA Appraisal Proposal. The frequency of response is on-occasion. The proposed rule would amend 12 CFR Part 1002, Equal Credit Opportunity (Regulation B). Regulation B currently contains collections of information approved by OMB. The Bureau's OMB control number for Regulation B is 3170–0013 (Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) 12 CFR 1002). As described below, the proposed rule would amend the collections of information currently in Regulation B.
The information collection in the proposed rule would be required to provide benefits for consumers and would be mandatory. Because the Bureau does not collect any information under the proposed rule, no issue of confidentiality arises. The likely respondents would be certain businesses, for-profit institutions, and nonprofit institutions that are creditors under Regulation B.
Under the proposed rule, the Bureau generally would account for the paperwork burden for the following respondents pursuant to its enforcement/supervisory authority: insured depository institutions with more than $10 billion in total assets, their depository institution affiliates, and certain non-depository institutions. The Bureau and the FTC generally both have enforcement authority over non-depository institutions subject to Regulation B. Accordingly, the Bureau has allocated to itself half of its estimated burden to non-depository institutions. Other Federal agencies, including the FTC, are responsible for estimating and reporting to OMB the paperwork burden for the institutions for which they have enforcement/supervision authority. They may, but are not required to, use the Bureau's burden estimation methodology.
Using the Bureau's burden estimation methodology, the total estimated burden for the roughly 14,000 creditors subject to the proposed rule, including Bureau respondents, would be approximately 173,000 hours of ongoing burden annually and 20,000 hours in one-time burden. Since creditors already provide consumers copies of appraisals if a loan closes, the Bureau assumes that there are no required software or information technology upgrades associated with implementing the rule, because all of the actions required by the rule are already practiced by the affected institutions. The Bureau expects that the amount of time required to implement each of the proposed changes for a given institution may vary based on the size, complexity, and practices of the respondent.
The information collection requirements in the proposed rule would be the provision of certain appraisals and other valuations to consumers. Under the proposed rule, copies of all appraisals and other valuations conducted in connection with an application for a loan to be secured by a first lien must be furnished to applicants free of charge within 3 days of application, and these copies may be delivered physically or electronically. Currently, ECOA requires that free copies be provided upon request. From outreach, the Bureau learned that it is customary to send consumers a copy of all valuations if the loan closes, but firms differed in their practices of sending out copies of valuations for loans that did not close.
The total annualized on-going burden for the depository institutions and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets (including their depository affiliates) that originate mortgage loans is estimated to be roughly 74,500 hours and the annualized ongoing burden for all non-depository institutions that originate mortgage loans is estimated to be 47,800 hours. These respondents are estimated to incur an additional 5,800 hours and 4,600 hours in one-time burden, respectively. As discussed previously, for purposes of the PRA analysis under this proposed rule, the Bureau would assume roughly 23,900 on-going burden hours and 2,300 one-time hours for the non-depository institutions.
Comments are specifically requested concerning: (i) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collections of information; (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) how to minimize the burden of complying with the proposed collections of information, including the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on the collection of information requirements should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, or by the Internet to
Certain conventions have been used to highlight the proposed changes to the text of the regulation and official interpretation. New language is shown inside ▸bold-faced arrows◂, while
Aged, Banks, Banking, Civil rights, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Discrimination, Fair lending, Marital status discrimination, National banks, National origin discrimination, Penalties, Race discrimination, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Sex discrimination.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection proposes to amend 12 CFR part 1002 and the Official Interpretations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1002 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 5512, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1691b.
2. Revise § 1002.14 to read as follows:
(a)
[(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
▸(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
[(b)
[(c)]▸(b)◂
(1)
(2)
▸(3)
3. Appendix C to part 1002 is amended by revising the sixth sentence in first paragraph, and sample Form C–9 is revised to read as follows:
1. This Appendix contains ten sample notification forms. Forms C–1 through C–4 are intended for use in notifying an applicant that adverse action has been taken on an application or account under §§ 1002.9(a)(1) and (2)(i) of this part. Form C–5 is a notice of disclosure of the right to request specific reasons for adverse action under §§ 1002.9(a)(1) and (2)(ii). Form C–6 is designed for use in notifying an applicant, under § 1002.9(c)(2), that an application is incomplete. Forms C–7 and C–8 are intended for use in connection with applications for business credit under § 1002.9(a)(3). Form C–9 is designed for use in notifying an applicant of the right to receive a copy of [an appraisal]▸appraisals and valuations◂ under § 1002.14. Form C–10 is designed for use in notifying an applicant for nonmortgage credit that the creditor is requesting applicant characteristic information.
[You have the right to a copy of the appraisal report used in connection with your application for credit. If you wish a copy, please write to us at the mailing address we have provided. We must hear from you no later than 90 days after we notify you about the action taken on your credit application or you withdraw your application.
[In your letter, give us the following information:]]
▸We may order an appraisal to determine the property's value and charge you for this appraisal. We will promptly give you a copy of any appraisal, even if your loan does not close.
You can pay for an additional appraisal for your own use at your own cost.◂
4. Supplement I to part 1002 is amended by revising Section 1002.14 to read as follows:
▸
14(a)
▸1.
1.
2.
▸3.
4.
[
1. Multiple Applicants. When an applicant that is subject to this section involves more than one applicant, the notice about the appraisal report need only be given to one applicant, but it must be given to the primary applicant where one is readily apparent.]
[
[1. Reimbursement. Creditors may charge for photocopy and postage costs incurred in providing a copy of the appraisal report, unless prohibited by State or other law. If the consumer has already paid for the report—for example, as part of an application fee—the creditor may not require additional fees for the appraisal (other than photocopy and postage costs).]
▸1.
2.
[
▸
1.
2.
1. [
i. A report prepared by an appraiser (whether or not licensed or certified), including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the appraiser's estimate or opinion of the property's value.
ii. A document prepared by the creditor's staff that assigns value to the property, if a third-party appraisal report has not been used.
iii. An internal review document reflecting that the creditor's valuation is different from a valuation in a third party's appraisal report (or different from valuations that are publicly available or valuations such as manufacturers' invoices for mobile homes).
▸iv. Values developed pursuant to a methodology or mechanism required by a government sponsored enterprise, including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the estimate of the property's value.
v. Values developed by an automated valuation model, including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the estimate of the property's value.
vi. A broker price opinion prepared by a real estate broker, agent, or sales person, including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the estimate of the property's value.◂
2.
i. Internal documents, [if a third-party appraisal report was used to establish the value of the property]▸that merely restate the estimated value of the dwelling contained in a written appraisal or valuation being provided to the applicant◂.
ii. Governmental agency statements of appraised value ▸that are publically available◂.
iii. Valuations lists that are publicly available (such as published sales prices or mortgage amounts, tax assessments, and retail price ranges) and valuations such as manufacturers' invoices for mobile homes.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of intent to make preemption determination.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is publishing notice of its intent to consider and address requests received to determine whether certain provisions in the laws of Maine and Tennessee relating to unclaimed gift cards are inconsistent with and preempted by the requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E.
Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB–2012–0036, by any of the following methods:
•
•
All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
Gregory Evans or Courtney Jean, Counsels, Division of Research, Markets, and Regulations, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, at (202) 435–7700.
The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), as amended by the Credit Card Accountability and Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, and as implemented by the Bureau's Regulation E, authorizes the Bureau to consider and address requests received to determine whether any inconsistency exists between the EFTA and State law “relating to,” among other things, “expiration dates of gift certificates, store gift cards, or general-use prepaid cards.”
The Bureau has received three requests for determinations as to whether provisions in the EFTA and Regulation E relating to gift card expiration dates preempt unclaimed property law provisions in Maine, Tennessee, and New Jersey relating to gift cards.
Regulation E, which implements the EFTA, generally prohibits any person from selling or issuing a gift certificate, store gift card, or general-use prepaid card with an expiration date unless, among other things, the expiration date for the underlying funds is at least the later of (i) five years after the date the card was issued (or, in the case of a reloadable card, five years after the date that funds were last loaded onto the card) or (ii) the card's expiration date, if any.
Pursuant to the EFTA, the Bureau intends to consider and address the requests received to determine whether the application of Maine's and Tennessee's unclaimed property statutes to gift cards is inconsistent with the EFTA and Regulation E. In making its determination, the Bureau will consider whether Maine's and Tennessee's statutes may afford consumers greater protection than Federal law. The Bureau invites interested persons to submit comment on all or any aspects of this notice.
Maine's and Tennessee's laws presume gift cards to be “abandoned” and release businesses from the obligation to honor the gift cards during a time period when, pursuant to Federal law, consumers should be able to use the cards. The Bureau seeks public comment on whether there is any inconsistency between these provisions of state law and the expiration date provisions of the EFTA and Regulation E and, if so, on the nature of the inconsistency. As a related matter, the Bureau solicits public comment on whether and how gift card issuers can comply with both Federal and State law, for example by honoring unclaimed cards and requesting reimbursement from Maine or Tennessee.
The Bureau further seeks comment on whether Maine's and Tennessee's unclaimed property statutes as applied to gift cards afford consumers greater protection than Federal law. For example, the Bureau notes that, once the funds corresponding to a consumer's unclaimed gift card transfer to Maine or Tennessee, those funds presumably are protected from the risk of loss in the event that an issuer later files for bankruptcy. Unclaimed gift cards that have transferred to Maine or Tennessee also should be protected from any inactivity fees that might otherwise be assessed on an unused card, to the extent permitted by Federal or State law.
On the other hand, if unclaimed gift card funds were transferred to Maine or Tennessee after two years of non-use, and if issuers were not required to honor the card, then a consumer might
The Bureau notes that at least one judicial decision has weighed the relative benefits to consumers of the EFTA and Regulation E and States' unclaimed property laws as applied to gift cards. In January 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey that declined to preliminarily enjoin the application to gift cards of New Jersey's unclaimed property law, which at the time presumed gift cards abandoned after two years of non-use.
As noted, the Bureau invites public comment on all or any aspects of this notice, including on the application of Maine's and Tennessee's unclaimed property laws to gift cards, on the nature of any inconsistency between those laws and the expiration date provisions of the EFTA and Regulation E, and on whether Maine's and Tennessee's laws afford consumers greater protection than Federal law. After the close of the comment period, the Bureau will analyze any comments received, conduct any further analysis that may be required, and will publish a notice of final action in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the lower corners of the door frame and cross beam of the forward cargo door, and corrective actions if necessary. The existing AD also requires eventual modification of the outboard radius of the lower corners of the door frame and reinforcement of the cross beam of the forward cargo door, which would constitute terminating action for the existing repetitive inspections. Since we issued that AD, we have received additional reports of fatigue cracking in the radius of the lower frames and in the lower number 5 cross beam of the forward cargo door. This proposed AD would revise the compliance times for the preventive modification; add certain inspections for cracks in the number 5 cross beam of the forward cargo door; and add inspections of the number 4 cross beam if cracks are found in the number 5 cross beam, and corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also add a one-time inspection for airplanes previously modified or repaired, and a one-time inspection of the reinforcement angle for excessive shimming or fastener pull-up, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the lower corners of the door frame and number 5 cross beam of the forward cargo door, which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 5, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6450; fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On March 31, 2000, we issued AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), for Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the lower corners of the door frame and cross beam of the forward cargo door, and corrective actions, if necessary. That AD also requires eventual modification of the outboard radius of the lower corners of the door frame and reinforcement of the cross beam of the forward cargo door, which would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections. That AD resulted from reports indicating that fatigue cracks were detected in the lower corners of the door frame and cross beam of the forward cargo door. We issued that AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the lower corners of the door frame and cross beam of the forward cargo door, which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), we have received additional reports of fatigue cracking in the radius of the lower frames and in the Web of the number 5 lower cross beam of the forward cargo door. One report was of a rapid loss of cabin pressure during descent, as a result of a door crack. Other reports indicated improper nesting when installing the aft reinforcement angle during accomplishment of the modification specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 3, dated July 20, 2000.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–52–1149, dated December 11, 2003. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000). This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.” Related investigative actions include inspecting the number 4 cross beam on the forward cargo door for cracking if cracking is found on the number 5 cross beam, a one-time high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of the lower corner frame, and a one-time inspection of the reinforcement angle. Corrective actions include the following: Installing a preventive modification, replacing the frame and repairing any cracking, repairing or replacing the number 5 cross beam, and replacing the reinforcement angle.
The compliance times required by AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), are specified in flight cycles on the airplane. However, the compliance times in the new actions specified in the revised service information are specified in door flight cycles, which are flight cycles accumulated on the forward cargo doors. These doors are interchangeable between airplanes and they are often interchanged. Since the unsafe condition stems from the total flight cycles accumulated on the door and not on the airplane itself, this proposed AD will specify door flight cycles for the new compliance times.
We have changed all references to a “detailed visual inspection” in the retained requirements of the existing AD to a “detailed inspection” in this proposed AD.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes has received an ODA. We have revised the retained requirements of the existing AD to delegate the authority to approve an alternative method of compliance for any repair required by this proposed AD to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA rather than a Designated Engineering Representative (DER).
We have included Note 2 of the restated requirements of AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD. Note 3 of the restated requirements of AD 2000–07–06 is no longer applicable and has been removed from this proposed AD. These changes do not add any additional burden on the public with regard to the restated requirements of the existing AD.
We have added Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, to paragraph (i)(2) of this AD as the source of service information for accomplishing the preventive modification and the reinforcement modification.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000). Since AD 2000–07–06 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:
Since issuance of AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), we have increased the labor rate used in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in the specified labor rate.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 581 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary modifications that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these modifications:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs/replacements specified in this proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 5, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by additional reports of fatigue cracking in the radius of the lower frames and in the lower number 5 cross beam of the forward cargo door. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the lower corners of the door frame and number 5 cross beam of the forward cargo door, which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), with revised service information. Within 1 year or 4,500 flight cycles after May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–07–06), whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracking of the lower corners (forward and aft) of the door frame of the forward cargo door, in accordance with Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test (NDT) Manual, D6–37239, Part 6, Section 51–00–00, Figure 4, dated August 5, 1997, or April 5, 2007, or Figure 23, dated August 5, 1997 or April 5, 2004, as applicable.
(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles, until the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD have been accomplished.
(2) If any cracking is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, which constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(i) Accomplish the requirements of paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) or (g)(2)(i)(B) of this AD, and install a cross beam repair and reinforcement modification of the cross beam, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994.
(A) Repair the door frame of the forward cargo door in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a repair or modification method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, and paragraphs (g)(2)(ii), (h)(2), (h)(3)(ii), and (i)(2) of this AD, the Manager's approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(B) Replace the door frame of the forward cargo door with a new door frame, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994.
(ii) Modify the repaired or replaced door frame of the forward cargo door, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings.
Accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994, does not supersede the requirements of AD 90–06–02, Amendment 39–6489 (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000). Within 1 year or 4,500 flight cycles after May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–07–06), whichever occurs later, perform a detailed inspection to detect cracking of the cross beam (i.e., upper and lower chord and Web sections) of the forward cargo door, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994. For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles until the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD have been accomplished.
(2) If any cracking is detected on the lower chord section of the cross beam during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings.
(3) If any cracking is detected on any area excluding the lower chord section of the cross beam (i.e., upper chord and Web section) during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the requirements of paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (h)(3)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes with line numbers 1 through 1231: Install a cross beam repair and preventative modification of the outboard radius of the lower corners (forward and aft) of the door frame, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994.
(ii) For airplanes with line numbers 1232 and subsequent: Install a cross beam repair and preventative modification of the outboard radius of the lower corners (forward and aft) of the door frame, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), with revised service information. Within 4 years or 12,000 flight cycles after May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–07–06), whichever occurs later: Install the preventative modification of the outboard radius of the lower corners (forward and aft) of the door frame and the reinforcement modification of the cross beam of the forward cargo door, in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishment of paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (h)(1) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes with line numbers 1 through 1231: Accomplish the preventative modification and the reinforcement modification, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994.
(2) For airplanes with line numbers 1232 and subsequent: Accomplish the preventative modification and the reinforcement modification, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings; or in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (d) of AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000). For all airplanes on which modifications of the forward lower corner of the door frame and the cross beam of the forward cargo door were accomplished in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, dated August 25, 1988, or Revision 1, dated July 20, 1989; or in accordance with the requirements of AD 90–06–02, Amendment 39–6489 (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990): Within 4 years or 12,000 flight cycles after May 16, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000–07–06), whichever occurs later, install the reinforcement modification of the aft corner of the door frame of the forward cargo door, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1100, Revision 2, dated March 31, 1994. Accomplishment of such modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (h)(1) of this AD.
Except as provided by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, do the inspections required by paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011; except as required by paragraph (m)(3) of this AD. Accomplishment of the inspections required by paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the requirements of the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (h)(1) of this AD. If any cracking is found in the number 4 cross beam, before further flight, repair in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–52–1149, dated December 11, 2003.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, refers to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–52–1149, dated December 11, 2003, as an additional source of guidance for the inspection for cracks of the number 4 cross beam.
(1) For airplanes identified in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011: Do a one-time HFEC inspection of the applicable location for cracks, in accordance with the Work Instructions, Part I, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011.
(2) For airplanes identified in Table 3 of paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011: Do a one-time general visual inspection of the reinforcement angle for excessive shimming or fastener pull-up, in accordance with the Work Instructions, Part III, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011.
(1) The supplemental structural inspections specified in Table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” and Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, are not required by this AD.
(2) The supplemental structural inspections specified in Table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, may be used in support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(c)(2)). The corresponding actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, are not required by this AD.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, specifies a compliance time relative to the Revision 5 issue date of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Table 1, “Condition” column of Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, specifies “airplanes without either the repair or modification accomplished in accordance with previous releases of this service bulletin,” the corresponding condition in this AD is for “airplanes on which either a repair or modification was not accomplished before the effective date of this AD.''
(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1100, Revision 5, dated February 14, 2011, specifies to contact Boeing for certain actions: Before further flight, do the repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 the Related Information section 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 previously in accordance with AD 2000–07–06, Amendment 39–11660 (65 FR 19302, April 11, 2000), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone (425) 917–6450; fax (425) 917–6590; email
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER series airplanes; and Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and –300ER series airplanes. This proposed
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 5, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed 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
Eric M. Brown, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6476; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received reports of burned BMS 8–39 urethane foam insulation on two Model 767–200 series airplanes. The airplane manufacturer has also notified us that certain Model 747, 767, and 777 airplanes were assembled with seals throughout various areas of the airplane (including flight deck and cargo compartments) made of BMS 8–39 urethane foam. The fire retardants in BMS 8–39 urethane foam are mixed into, but are not chemically connected with, the remaining components of the foam. The fire-retardant properties of BMS 8–39 urethane foam deteriorate with age (5 to 10 years). This, along with dust, dirt, and other carbon particulate contamination of the urethane foam, adds an available fuel source for a potential fire. Once ignited, the deteriorated foam emits noxious smoke, does not self-extinguish, and drips droplets of liquefied urethane, which can further propagate a fire. Deteriorated BMS 8–39 urethane foam seals in a cargo compartment also compromise the Halon retention and smoke/fire-blocking capabilities of the cargo compartment. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in failure of urethane seals to maintain sufficient Halon concentrations in the cargo compartments to extinguish or contain fire or smoke, and could result in penetration of fire or smoke in areas of the airplane that are difficult to access for fire and smoke detection or suppression.
We issued the following ADs to require reworking certain air distribution ducts in the environmental control system (ECS) wrapped with BMS 8–39 or Aeronautical Materials Specifications (AMS) 3570 urethane foam insulation. These ADs resulted from reports from the airplane manufacturer that airplanes were assembled with duct assemblies in the ECS wrapped with BMS 8–39 urethane foam insulation, a material with fire-retardant properties that deteriorate with age, and reports of duct assemblies in the ECS with burned BMS 8–39 urethane foam insulation. We issued these ADs to prevent a potential electrical arc from igniting the BMS 8–39 urethane foam insulation on the duct assemblies of the ECS, which could propagate a small fire and lead to a larger fire that might spread throughout the airplane through the ECS.
• AD 2008–02–16, Amendment 39–15346 (73 FR 4061, January 24, 2008), applicable to certain Model 767–200 and 767–300 series airplanes.
• AD 2010–14–01, Amendment 39–16344 (75 FR 38007, July 1, 2010), applicable to certain Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.
• AD 2012–02–09, Amendment 39–16932 (77 FR 5996, February 7, 2012), for certain Model 737–100, –200, –200C, and –300 series airplanes.
We reviewed the following Boeing service bulletins:
• For Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes: Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–25–3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012. This service bulletin describes procedures for replacing BMS 8–39 urethane foam seals with either BMS 8–371 insulation foam or BMS 1–68 silicone foam rubber seals. (The required actions depend on requirements for use and location of the BMS 8–39 urethane foam in the airplane.) Procedures for the replacement include, for some airplanes, doing a general visual
• Main deck system tube/wire foam seals (left/right sidewalls)
• Main deck foam air seal (left/right sidewalls)
• Main deck air baffle foam (left/right sidewalls)
• Main deck ceiling panel foam strip
• Forward and aft cargo system tube/wire foam seal
• Flight deck overheard electrical equipment panel/structure and overhead drip-shield foam
• E1/E2 rack wire integration unit cover assemblies
• For Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER series airplanes: Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767–25–0381, dated August 19, 2010. This service bulletin describes procedures for doing a general visual inspection for BMS 8–39 urethane foam for certain airplanes, covering the BMS 8–39 foam with cargo liner joint sealing tape in certain areas, replacing certain BMS 8–39 foam pads with Nomex felt in certain areas, and replacing BMS 8–39 urethane foam seals with either BMS 8–371 insulation foam or BMS 1–68 silicone foam rubber seals. (The required actions depend on requirements for use and location of the BMS 8–39 urethane foam in the airplane.) The actions are to be done in the following areas of the airplane (depending on airplane configuration):
• Forward and aft cargo compartments
• Flight deck
• Crown area (foam pad to be replaced with Nomex felt)
• Over wing escape hatch (corner seals)
• For Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and –300ER series airplanes: Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777–25–0362, dated August 19, 2010. This service bulletin describes procedures for replacing BMS 8–39 urethane foam seals with BMS 1–68 silicone foam rubber seals in the forward and aft cargo compartments of the airplane.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 694 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by October 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–25–3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012.
(2) Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767–25–0381, dated August 19, 2010.
(3) Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and –300ER series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777–25–0362, dated August 19, 2010.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of burned Boeing Material Specification (BMS) 8–39 urethane foam, and a report from the airplane manufacturer that airplanes were assembled with seals throughout various areas of the airplane (including flight deck and cargo compartments) made of BMS 8–39 urethane foam, a material with fire-retardant properties that deteriorate with age. We are issuing this AD to prevent the failure of urethane seals to maintain sufficient Halon concentrations in the cargo compartments to extinguish or contain fire or smoke, and to prevent penetration of fire or smoke in areas of the airplane that are difficult to access for fire and smoke detection or suppression.
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 paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes: Replace the BMS 8–39 urethane foam seals (including doing a general visual inspection of the airplane sidewalls for air baffles, and of the BMS 8–39 urethane foam for penetrations (e.g., wire penetrations)) with BMS 8–371 insulation foam or BMS 1–68 silicone foam rubber seals, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions and Appendix A, as applicable, of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–25–3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012.
(2) For Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER series airplanes: Perform a general visual inspection for the presence of BMS 8–39 urethane foam, cover the BMS 8–39 foam with cargo liner joint sealing tape in certain areas, replace certain BMS 8–39 foam pads with Nomex felt in certain areas, and replace BMS 8–39 urethane foam seals with BMS 8–371 insulation foam or BMS 1–68 silicone foam rubber seals, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions and Appendix A, as applicable, of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767–25–0381, dated August 19, 2010.
(3) For Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and –300ER series airplanes: Replace BMS 8–39 urethane foam seals with BMS 1–68 silicone foam rubber seals in the forward and aft cargo compartments of the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777–25–0362, dated August 19, 2010.
For Groups 4 and 5 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–25–3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012: This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were done before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–25–3381, dated August 19, 2010.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a BMS 8–39 urethane foam seal on any airplane.
(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 the Related Information section 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric M. Brown, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6476; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of an approximate 8-inch crack found in the fuselage skin under the aft drain mast. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection for cracking and corrosion of the channel and fillers adjacent to the drain mast bolts, an inspection to determine the location of the bonding strap, a measurement of the washers under the drain mast bolts, and related investigative actions and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage skin and internal support structure, which could result in uncontrolled decompression of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 5, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed 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
Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6447; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report of an aft drain mast found loose on a Model 737–400 series airplane with approximately 30,500 total flight cycles. Further investigation revealed the fuselage skin and surrounding back-up structure were cracked. An 8-inch crack common to the fuselage skin was hidden under the drain mast. The crack was likely caused by incorrect installation of the drain mast. A drain mast that is not installed correctly can cause cracks in the fuselage skin and the internal support structure. The skin cracks cannot be seen because they are hidden by the drain mast. This condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontrolled decompression of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011.
For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011, this service bulletin describes procedures for doing a detailed inspection for cracking and corrosion of the channel and fillers adjacent to the drain mast bolts, an inspection to determine the location of the bonding strap, a measurement of the washers under the drain mast bolts, and related investigative actions and repair if necessary. Related investigative actions include removing the drain mast and doing a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) and detailed inspection for cracking and corrosion of the skin, channel, and fillers. This service bulletin also specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions and doing the repair.
For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011, this service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing for inspection and repair instructions and doing the actions.
The compliance time for the inspection is within 120 days, and before further flight for the repair.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to inspect and repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require that those actions be accomplished in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 612 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do certain necessary conditional actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the repair specified in this proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in, 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by October 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of an approximate 8-inch crack found in the fuselage skin under the aft drain mast. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage skin and internal support structure, which could result in uncontrolled decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For airplanes identified as Group 1 airplanes in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011: At the times specified in paragraph 1.E. “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD, and do all related investigative actions and repair, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Related investigative actions and repairs must be done before further flight. If the drain mast is found to be installed correctly, no further action is required by this paragraph.
(i) Do a detailed inspection for cracking and signs of corrosion of the channel and the fillers adjacent to the drain mast bolts.
(ii) Inspect the bonding strap for the correct location.
(iii) Measure the diameter and thickness of the washers under the drain mast bolts.
(2) For airplanes identified as Group 2 airplanes in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect and repair, as required, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Repairs must be done before further flight.
(1) Where Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011, specifies a compliance time after the original issue date of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes identified as Group 1 airplanes in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011: If any cracking or sign of corrosion is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1318, dated October 31, 2011, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action, before further flight, repair the crack or sign of corrosion using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) 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 the Related Information section 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
(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 Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6447; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
The FAA is issuing a SNPRM for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) of June 4, 2012, in order to elicit comments addressing increasing further the controlled Class E airspace area at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID. The NPRM proposed a modification of Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface and 1,200 feet above the surface, and an adjustment to the geographic coordinates. This SNPRM would further enlarge the Class E airspace 1,200 feet above the surface area to enhance safety in the Lewiston-Nez Pearce County Airport, Lewiston, ID area.
Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2012.
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–2012–0384; Airspace Docket No. 12–ANM–9, 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.
On June 4, 2012, the FAA published a NPRM to modify Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID (77 FR 32921). Also the geographic coordinates of the airport and navigation aids would be adjusted in the respective Class D and Class E airspace areas. The comment period closed July 19, 2012. The FAA received one comment from the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA).
The NBAA recommended making the Class E airspace area extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface larger by lowering some of the adjacent Class E airspace, which begins from between 10,000 Mean Sea Level (MSL) and 14,500 MSL, for aircraft safety. The FAA found merit in this comment, and, therefore, proposes the additional Class E airspace area, extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, be made larger. The FAA seeks comments on this SNPRM.
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 2012–0384 and Airspace Docket No. 12–ANM–9) 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–2012–0384 and Airspace Docket No. 12–ANM–9”. 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 NPRMs 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 further increasing the Class E airspace area extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID, to accommodate aircraft using RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. As stated in the NPRM, the geographic coordinates of the airport, the Nez Perce VOR/DME, and the Lewiston-Nez Perce ILS Localizer navigation aids, would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database for the respective Class D airspace and Class E airspace areas. This action would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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 that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 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 regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify controlled airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID.
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:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011 is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,900 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of the Lewiston-Nez Perce County 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.
Within a 4.1-mile radius of the Lewiston-Nez Perce County 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.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.7 miles each side of the Lewiston-Nez Perce ILS localizer course extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 14 miles east of the airport and within 3.5 miles each side of the Nez Perce VOR/DME 266° radial extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 13.1 miles west 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.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 46°33′00″ N., long. 117°38′00″ W.; to lat. 46°31′30″ N., long 117°14′00″ W.; to lat. 46°40′00″ N., long. 116°48′00″ W.; to lat. 46°26′00″ N., long. 116°26′00″ W.; to lat. 46°13′00″ N., long. 116°30′00″ W.; to lat. 46°14′00″ N., long. 116°35′00″ W.; to lat. 46°06′00″ N., long. 116°47′00″ W.; to lat. 46°17′00″ N., long. 116°49′00″ W.; to lat. 46°18′00″ N., long 117°00′00″ W.; to lat. 46°17′30″ N., long. 117°22′00″ W.; to lat. 46°10′30″ N., long. 117°26′30″ W.; to lat. 46°12′00″ N., long. 117°36′00″ W.; thence to the point of origin; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 62-mile radius of the Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, and within 24 miles each side of the 056° bearing of the airport, extending from the 62-mile radius to 92 miles northeast of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, Pullman, WA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, Pullman, WA. Also, the Pullman navigation aid would be removed from the airspace designation. 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 October 5, 2012.
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–2012–0648; Airspace Docket No. 12–ANM–19, 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 2012–0648 and Airspace Docket No. 12–ANM–19) 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–2012–0648 and Airspace Docket No. 12–ANM–19”. 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 NPRMs 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 Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, Pullman, WA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, Pullman, WA. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. Also, for clarity, the Pullman VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) would be removed from the regulatory text.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, 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 regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify controlled airspace at Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, Pullman, WA.
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:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011 is amended as follows:
Within a 4-mile radius of Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, and within 1.7 miles each side of the Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport 046° bearing extending from the 4-mile radius to 8 miles northeast of the airport, and within 1.7 miles each side of the Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport 227° bearing extending from the 4-mile radius to 6 miles southwest 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.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10-mile radius of the Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, and within 1.7 miles each side of the Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport 229° bearing extending from the 10-mile radius to 13 miles southwest of the airport, and that airspace bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the 10-mile radius of the airport and the Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport 307° bearing to the intersection of the of the 23-mile radius of the airport and the Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport 328° bearing extending clockwise within a 23-mile radius of the Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport; thence to the intersection of the 23-mile radius of the airport and the Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport 064° bearing of the airport to the intersection of the 10-mile radius of the airport and the Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport 066° bearing of the airport; thence to the point of origin. That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 46°46′00″ N., long. 117°51′00″ W.; to lat. 47°06′00″ N., long. 117°29′00″ W.; to lat. 47°10′00″ N., long. 117°13′00″ W.; to lat. 47°07′00″ N., long. 116°50′00″ W.; to lat. 46°57′00″ N., long. 116°28′00″ W.; to lat. 46°38′00″ N., long. 116°41′00″ W.; to lat. 46°31′00″ N., long. 116°23′00″ W., to lat. 46°12′00″ N., long. 116°25′00″ W.; to lat. 46°19′00″ N., long. 116°57′00″ W.; to lat. 46°24′00″ N., long. 117°30′00″ W.; thence to the point of origin.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed policy; disposition of comments.
On December 15, 2011, the FAA published a
You may review the public docket for this notice (Docket No. FAA–2011–1082) at the Docket Management Facility at DOT Headquarters in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the public docket on the Internet at
Mr. Greg Joyner, AJM–324, Program Management Organization, Navigation Program Engineering, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20591: telephone 202–493–5721.
The FAA sought comments on the proposed transition of the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) navigation infrastructure to enable PBN as part of the NextGen. The FAA plans to transition from defining airways, routes and procedures using VOR and other legacy NAVAIDs, to a NAS based on RNAV everywhere and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) where beneficial. RNAV and RNP capabilities will primarily be enabled by the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA plans to retain an optimized network of Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) facilities and a Minimum Operational Network (MON) of VOR facilities to ensure safety and support continued operations in high and low altitude en route airspace over the Conterminous United States (CONUS) and in terminal airspace at the Core 30 airports. The FAA is also conducting research on non-GPS based Alternate Positioning, Navigation and Timing (APNT) solutions that would enable further reduction of VORs below that of the MON.
In addition, the FAA plans to satisfy any new requirements for Category I (CAT I) instrument landing operations with WAAS Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance (LPV) procedures. A network of existing Instrument Landing Systems (ILSs) will be sustained to provide alternative approach and landing capabilities to support continued recovery and dispatch of aircraft during GPS outages.
This transition is consistent with the FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP), NAS Enterprise Architecture (NASEA), and other documentation. More information is available on the
The FAA received 330 comments on the FRN. Commenters include aircraft manufacturers, airline operators, individuals, and associations representing users, airports and several federal, state and local government organizations. Most comments were supportive of the evolution of the NAS to an RNAV based system, but a significant number of commenters were concerned about reliance on GPS and WAAS related to possible impacts of interference or disruption, as well as the requirements and costs of avionics. A number of commenters were concerned about loss of approach services at specific airports in the event of discontinuation of service from specific VOR facilities. A substantial number of the comments (185) received were from individuals concerned about noise and environmental impact in the New York metropolitan area. Some reflected concerns about aircraft emissions and flight paths used by helicopters. These comments have been forwarded to the FAA Eastern Region for action.
The FAA has reviewed all the comments received in response to the FRN and plans to proceed with the strategy as outlined in the FRN. The FAA is developing an initial VOR MON Plan, which will be publicly available when it is sufficiently matured. Development of this Plan will harmonize with development of a national Concept of Operations (CONOPS) supporting navigation and positioning in the NAS as it evolves from conventional navigation to PBN. When completed, this CONOPS will also be publicly available.
As part of the coordination process, the FAA plans to develop a schedule showing the requisite activities associated with the discontinuance of VOR services. These activities will include timely notification for individual facilities and airspace and procedure redesign.
The FAA's NextGen Alternate PNT (APNT) program ensures that alternate PNT services will be available to support flight operations, maintain safety, minimize economic impacts from GPS outages within the NAS and support air transportation's timing needs. APNT will be an alternative for all users. Avionics equipage is a major consideration. APNT requirements will be met with the optimum use of existing avionics. The current plan is for APNT equipage to be optional.
The FAA notes that there is historic precedent for the transition to a single national system—specifically the establishment of VORs and associated airways, DME, and ILS in the 1950s. At that time the military did not want to equip with VOR or ILS in tactical aircraft due to weight and space constraints, stating that Non-Directional Beacons (NDB) and four course ranges for enroute navigation and ground controlled approach (GCA) for landing was sufficient pending implementation of TACAN. The military also wanted to evolve to use TACAN because of weight/size and operational advantages over VOR and to include their implementation of DME, rather than the civil DME standard. The civil community, particularly airlines, wanted VOR for improved accuracy and usability over four course ranges and NDBs with ILS for approaches. In the end the NDBs and four course ranges were retained until military aircraft and operating practices transitioned to TACAN, the military DME standard was adopted for all DMEs and ILS was standardized for approaches, though the military continued GCA approaches, particularly for tactical aircraft.
The transition to RNAV/RNP may be undertaken economically for military aviation by retaining TACAN as a system, discontinuing only specific facilities on an individual basis; incorporating military use considerations for identifying VOR service for discontinuation in enroute and terminal environments; designating special use airspace and other military usage features with RNAV references as well as TACAN or VOR rho/theta and
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is proposing a rule to exempt swaps between certain affiliated entities within a corporate group from the clearing requirement (the “inter-affiliate clearing exemption” or the “proposed exemption”) under Section 2(h)(1)(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). The Commission also is proposing rules that detail specific conditions counterparties must satisfy to elect the proposed inter-affiliate clearing exemption, as well as reporting requirements for affiliated entities that avail themselves of the proposed exemption. The Commission has finalized a rule that addresses swaps that are subject to the end-user exception. Counterparties to inter-affiliate swaps that qualify for the end-user exception would be able to elect to not clear swaps pursuant to the end-user exception or the proposed rule. The proposed rule does not address swaps that an affiliate enters into with a third party that are related to inter-affiliate swaps that are subject to the end-user exception. The Commission intends separately to propose a rule addressing swaps between an affiliate and a third party where the swaps are used to hedge or mitigate commercial risk arising from inter-affiliate swaps for which the end-user exception has been elected.
Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 3038–AD47, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. “Inter-affiliate Clearing Exemption” must be in the subject field of responses submitted via email, and clearly indicated on written submissions. Comments will be posted as received to
Throughout this proposed rulemaking, the Commission requests comment in response to specific questions. For convenience, the Commission has numbered each of these comment requests. The Commission asks that, in submitting responses to these requests, commenters identify the specific number of each request to which their comments are responsive.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse, or remove any or all of a submission from www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the rulemaking will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.
Gloria Clement, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 418–5122,
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act” or “DFA”).
Section 723 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 2(h) to the CEA, which establishes a clearing requirement for swaps.
A person may elect not to clear certain swaps if such person qualifies for an exception under CEA section 2(h)(7) and the Commission regulations issued in connection therewith (the “end-user exception”).
Importantly, a counterparty to an inter-affiliate swap that qualifies for both the end-user exception and the inter-affiliate exemption may elect not to clear the inter-affiliate swap under either the end-user exception or the inter-affiliate exemption. As such, the Commission believes that the rule proposed in this rulemaking may not be necessary for the vast majority of inter-affiliate swaps involving a non-financial entity or a small financial institution because the end-user exception can be elected for those swaps. Accordingly, it is likely the proposed rule will be used for inter-affiliate swaps between two financial entities that do not qualify for the end-user exception or for swaps involving a non-financial entity that do not qualify for the end-user exception because the swaps do not hedge or mitigate commercial risk.
Finally, CEA section 4(c)(1), described in more detail below, grants the Commission general exemptive powers.
Except as provided with respect to certain financing affiliates as noted above, CEA section 2(h) does not provide any specific exception to swaps entered into by affiliates that are subject to a clearing requirement (“inter-affiliate swaps”).
A number of commenters in a variety of Commission rulemakings have recommended that the Commission adopt an exemption to the clearing requirement for inter-affiliate swaps.
Prudential Financial, Inc. (“PFI”), stated that it employs a “conduit” structure where separate legal entities are commonly owned by PFI.
In a letter to Congress, the Coalition for Derivatives End-Users (“CDEU”) asserted that inter-affiliate swaps do not create external counterparty exposure and, therefore, pose none of the systemic or other risks that the clearing requirement is designed to protect against.
These comments suggest that swaps entered into between corporate affiliates, if properly risk-managed, may be beneficial to the operation of the corporate group as a whole. They indicate that inter-affiliate swaps may improve a corporate group's risk management internally and allow the corporate group to use the most efficient means to effectuate swaps with third parties. While the Commission recognizes these potential benefits of inter-affiliate swaps, the Commission is also taking into account the systemic risk repercussions of inter-affiliate swaps as it considers and proposes an exemption to the CEA's clearing requirement applicable to those inter-affiliate swaps.
Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA empowers the Commission to “promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition” by exempting any transaction or class of transactions, including swaps, from any of the provisions of the CEA (subject to exceptions not relevant here).
In order to promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition, the Commission by rule, regulation, or order, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may (on its own initiative or on application of any person * * * ) exempt any agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof) that is otherwise subject to subsection (a) of this section * * * either unconditionally or on stated terms or conditions or for stated periods and either retroactively or prospectively, or both, from any of the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, or from any other provision of this Act.
By issuing a proposed exemptive rule, the Commission also is exercising its general rulemaking authority under CEA section 8a(5), 7 U.S.C. 12a(5).
The primary benefit of clearing is the reduction of counterparty risk. The Commission notes commenters' assertions that there is less counterparty risk associated with inter-affiliate swaps than swaps with third parties to the extent that affiliated counterparties internalize each other's counterparty risk because they are members of the same corporate group. This internalization can be demonstrated by the example of a swap entered into between affiliates A and B that are majority owned by the same person.
The Commission does not believe there is significantly reduced counterparty risk with respect to swaps between affiliates that are not majority-owned by the same person because there is less economic feedback. If A is a majority-owned affiliate and B is a minority-owned affiliate, then any harm that B experiences as a consequence of A's failure to perform is likely to have a less adverse impact on the profits of A's corporate group than if B was a majority-owned affiliate. In addition, the Commission believes that B's failure to perform would be significantly less likely to drive A's corporate group into bankruptcy than if B were majority-owned.
On the basis of reduced counterparty risk, the Commission has determined preliminarily that inter-affiliate swap risk may not need to be mitigated through clearing, but can be reduced through other means. The Commission also believes at the proposal stage that exempting inter-affiliate swaps would enable corporations to structure their groups so that corporate risk is concentrated in one entity—whether it be at a treasury- or conduit-type affiliate, or at the parent company.
The Commission, nevertheless, believes that uncleared inter-affiliate swaps could pose risk to corporate groups and market participants, generally. Uncleared inter-affiliate swaps also may pose risk to other market participants, and therefore the financial system, if the treasury/conduit affiliate enters into swaps with third parties that are related on a back-to-back or matched book basis with inter-affiliate swaps. To continue the above example, if A's failure to perform (for whatever reason) makes it impossible for B to meet its third-party swap obligations, then those third parties would be harmed and risk could spread into the marketplace. However, A's risk of nonperformance is less than it would be if B were a third party to the extent A internalizes B's counterparty risk.
To address these concerns, the Commission is proposing rules that would exempt inter-affiliate swaps from clearing if certain conditions are satisfied. First, the proposed exemption would be limited to swaps between majority-owned affiliates whose financial statements are reported on a consolidated basis. Second, the proposed rules would require the following: Centralized risk management, documentation of the swap agreement, variation margin payments (for financial entities), and satisfaction of reporting requirements. In addition, the exemption would be limited to swaps between U.S. affiliates, and swaps between a U.S. affiliate and a foreign affiliate located in a jurisdiction with a comparable and comprehensive clearing regime or the non-United States counterparty is otherwise required to clear the swaps it enters into with third
Q1. The Commission requests comment on whether it should exercise its authority under CEA section 4(c).
Q2. Do inter-affiliate swaps pose risk to the corporate group? If so, what risk is posed? In particular, do inter-affiliate swaps pose less risk to a corporate group than swaps with third parties? If so, why is that the case?
Q3. Do inter-affiliate swaps pose risk to the third parties that have entered into swaps that are related to the inter-affiliate swaps? If so, what risk is posed?
Q4. Would the proposed exemption promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition?
Q5. Would the proposed exemption promote the public interest?
Q6. Inter-affiliate swaps that do not meet the conditions to the proposed exemption would be subject to the clearing requirement under CEA section 2(h)(1)(A) and, potentially, the trade execution requirement under CEA section 2(h)(8) as well. What would be the costs and benefits of imposing the trade execution requirement on these inter-affiliate swaps? Should the Commission exempt some or all inter-affiliate swaps from the trade execution requirement regardless of whether the conditions to the proposed inter-affiliate clearing exemption are met?
Under proposed § 39.6(g)(1), the inter-affiliate clearing exemption would only be available for swaps between majority-owned affiliates. As explained above, the Commission believes there is reduced counterparty risk with respect to such swaps. Under the proposed rule, affiliates would be majority-owned if one affiliate directly or indirectly holds a majority ownership interest in the other affiliate, or if a third party directly or indirectly holds a majority ownership interest in both affiliates and the financial statements of both affiliates are reported on a consolidated basis. A majority-ownership interest would be based on holding a majority of the equity securities of an entity, or the right to receive upon dissolution, or the contribution of, a majority of the capital of a partnership.
The Commission is not proposing to extend the exemption to affiliates that are related on a minority-owned basis. As explained above, the Commission does not believe there is significantly reduced counterparty risk with respect to swaps between such affiliates. The Commission also believes it is important for the proposed inter-affiliate clearing exemption to be harmonized with foreign jurisdictions that have or are developing comparable clearing regimes consistent with the 2009 G–20 Leaders' Statement.
Q7. The Commission requests comments on all aspects of the Commission's proposed requirement that the inter-affiliate clearing exemption be available to majority-owned affiliates.
Q8a. Should the Commission consider requiring a percentage of ownership greater than majority ownership to qualify for the inter-affiliate clearing exemption?
Q8b. If so, what percentage should be used and what are the benefits and burdens of such ownership requirements?
Q8b. Should the Commission require a 100% ownership threshold for the inter-affiliate clearing exemption? Would a 100% ownership threshold reduce counterparty risk and protect minority owners better than the proposed threshold. Are there other means to lessen risk to minority owners, such as consent?
Q9. Should the Commission consider an 80% ownership threshold based on section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code, which establishes an 80% voting and value test for an affiliate group.
(a) Affiliated group defined for purposes of this subtitle—
(1) In general. The term “affiliated group” means—
(A) 1 or more chains of corporations connected through stock ownership with a common parent corporation which is a corporation, but only if—
(B) (i) the common parent owns directly stock meeting the requirements of paragraph (2) in at least 1 of the other corporations, and
(ii) stock meeting the requirements of paragraph (2) in each of the includible corporations (except the common parent) is owned directly by 1 or more of the other includible corporations.
(2) 80-percent voting and value test The ownership of stock of any corporation meets the requirements of this paragraph if it—
(A) possesses at least 80 percent of the total voting power of the stock of such corporation, and
(B) has a value equal to at least 80 percent of the total value of the stock of such corporation.
(3) Stock not to include certain preferred stock
For purposes of this subsection, the term “stock” does not include any stock which—(A) is not entitled to vote,
(B) is limited and preferred as to dividends and does not participate in corporate growth to any significant extent,
(C) has redemption and liquidation rights which do not exceed the issue price of such stock (except for a reasonable redemption or liquidation premium), and
(D) is not convertible into another class of stock.
The Commission believes that affiliates within a corporate group may make independent determinations on whether to submit an inter-affiliate swap for clearing. Ostensibly, each affiliate may reach different conclusions regarding the appropriateness of clearing. Given this possibility, proposed § 39.6(g)(2)(i) would require that both counterparties elect the proposed inter-affiliate clearing exemption (each, an “electing counterparty”).
Q10. Would this requirement create any operational issues?
The Commission understands that affiliates may enter into swaps with
Proposed § 39.6(g)(2)(iii) would address these concerns by requiring affiliates to enter into swaps with a swap trading relationship document.
Q11. The Commission requests comment as to the burden or cost of the proposed rule requiring documentation of inter-affiliate swaps.
Q12. The Commission also requests comment as to whether its risk tracking and management and proof-of-claim concerns could be addressed by other means of documentation.
Q13. The Commission requests comment as to whether the Commission should create a specific document template. Should the industry do so?
Proposed § 39.6(g)(2)(iii) would require inter-affiliate swaps to be subject to a centralized risk management program reasonably designed to monitor and manage the risks associated with the inter-affiliate swaps. As noted in Part I.B. above, inter-affiliate swaps may pose risk to third parties if risks are not properly managed. Accordingly, to encourage prudent risk management, the proposed inter-affiliate clearing exemption would be conditioned on a corporate group's evaluation, measurement and control of such risks. The Commission anticipates that the program would be implemented and run by the parent company or the treasury/conduit affiliate, but the rule provides flexibility to determine how best to satisfy this requirement.
The Commission understands that some groups that use inter-affiliate swaps, particularly large financial entities, already have a centralized risk management program.
Q14. The Commission requests comments that explain how current centralized risk management programs operate.
Q15. The Commission requests comment on whether it should promulgate additional regulations that set forth minimum standards for a centralized risk management program. If so, what should those standards be? Is there a consistent industry practice which could be observed?
Q16. Is the proposed rule in line with industry practice?
Proposed § 39.6(g)(2)(iv) would require that variation margin be collected for swaps between affiliates that are financial entities, as defined in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C), in compliance with the proposed variation margin requirements set forth in proposed § 39.6(g)(3).
The Commission understands that a number of financial entities currently
The proposed requirement would not apply to 100% commonly-owned and commonly-guaranteed affiliates, provided that the common guarantor is also under 100% common ownership. As discussed above, the risk of an inter-affiliate swap may be mitigated through the posting of variation margin. The Commission believes that when the economic interests of two affiliates are both (i) fully aligned and (ii) a common guarantor bears the ultimate risk associated swaps entered into with a third party, non-affiliated counterparty, the posting of variation margin does not substantially mitigate the risk of an inter-affiliate swap. This exception is intended to apply to swaps between two wholly-owned subsidiaries of a common parent or in instances where one affiliate is wholly owned by the other.
The first of the conditions required to claim the exception to the requirement under proposed regulation 39.6(g)(2)(iv) to post variation margin relates to complete common ownership. When two affiliates are owned by the same owner or one is wholly owned by the other, the underlying owners are the same and the economic interests of the two affiliates are aligned.
A person would not be able to claim 100 percent ownership for the purposes of this provision based on a contingent right or obligation, by contract or otherwise, to take ownership of the equity interest in the affiliate by purchase or otherwise.
Q17a. The Commission requests comment as to whether it should promulgate regulations that set forth minimum standards for variation margin. If so, what should those standards be?
Q17b. The Commission requests comment as to whether it should promulgate regulations that set forth minimum standards for initial margin. If so, what should those standards be?
Q17c. The Commission requests comment as to whether it should promulgate regulations that set forth minimum standards for both initial and variation margin for inter-affiliate swaps. If so, what should those standards be?
Q17d. The Commission's proposed rule “Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants”—17 CFR Part 23—would require initial and variation margin for certain swaps that are not cleared by a registered designated clearing organization. Should inter-affiliate swaps that are not subject to the clearing requirement of CEA section 2(h)(1)(A) be subject to the margin requirements as set out in proposed Part 23 or otherwise?
Q18. The Commission requests comment on the costs and benefits of requiring variation margin for inter-affiliate swaps, both in general and specifically, regarding corporate groups that do not currently transfer variation margin in respect of inter-affiliate swaps.
Q19. The Commission requests comment on whether 100% commonly-owned affiliates sharing a common guarantor—that is, a guarantor that is also 100% commonly owned—should be exempt from the requirement to transfer variation margin. Please explain the impact on the corporate group, if any, if the described affiliates are required to transfer variation margin.
Q20a. Should any other categories of entities or corporate groups, such as non-swap dealers and non-major swap participants, be exempt from the variation margin requirement for their inter-affiliate swaps? If so, which categories and why?
Q20b. Should the Commission limit the variation margin requirements to those inter-affiliate swaps for which at least one counterparty is a swap dealer, major swap participant, or financial entity, as defined in paragraph (g)(6) of the proposed rule text, that is subject to prudential regulation?
Q21. The Commission requests comment as to whether it should eliminate the proposed exemption's variation margin condition for swaps between 100% owned affiliates.
Q22. The Commission requests comment as to whether it should eliminate the proposed exemption's
Q23. The Commission requests comment on whether all types of financial entities identified in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C) should be subject to the variation margin requirement. Should entities that are part of a commercial corporate group and are financial entities solely because of CEA section 2(h)(7)(C)(i)(VIII) be excluded from such requirement? Why?
The Commission is proposing to limit the inter-affiliate clearing exemption to inter-affiliate swaps between two U.S.-based affiliates or swaps where one affiliate is located abroad in a jurisdiction with a comparable and comprehensive clearing regime or the non-United States counterparty is otherwise required to clear swaps with third parties in compliance with United States law or does not enter into swaps with third parties. The limitation in § 39.6(g)(2)(v) is designed to address the Commission's concerns about risk and to deter evasion as directed by CEA section 2(h)(4)(A).
Under section 2(h)(4)(A), the Commission must prescribe rules necessary to prevent evasion of the clearing requirement.
The Commission recognizes that there may be a legitimate reason for an inter-affiliate swap where one affiliate is located in a country that does not have a comparable clearing regime. However, the Commission believes that financial markets may be at risk if the foreign affiliate enters into a related third-party swap that would be subject to clearing were it entered into in the United States, but is not cleared. On balance, the Commission believes that the risk of evasion and the systemic risk associated with uncleared swaps necessitates that the exemption be limited to swaps between affiliates located in the United States or in foreign countries with comparable clearing regimes or the non-United States counterparty is otherwise required to clear swaps with third parties in compliance with United States law or does not enter into swaps with third parties.
Q24a. The Commission requests comment on proposed § 39.6(g)(2)(v). Is the proposed condition that both affiliates must be located in the United States or in a country with a comparable and comprehensive clearing jurisdiction or the non-United States counterparty is otherwise required to clear swaps with third parties or does not enter into swaps with third parties a necessary and appropriate means of reducing risk and evasion concerns related to inter-affiliate swaps? If not, how should these concerns be addressed?
Q24b. Should the Commission limit the inter-affiliate clearing exemption to foreign affiliates that only enter into inter-affiliate swaps if such foreign affiliates are not located in a jurisdiction with a comparable and comprehensive clearing requirement or are otherwise required to clear swaps with third parties in compliance with United States?
Q24c. Should the Commission limit the inter-affiliate clearing exemption to foreign affiliates that enter into swaps with third parties on an occasional basis if such foreign affiliates are not located in a jurisdiction with a comparable and comprehensive clearing requirement or are otherwise required to clear swaps with third parties in compliance with United States. What would constitute an occasional basis? For example, would once a year be an appropriate time frame?
Q25. The Commission requests comment on (1) the prevalence of cross-border inter-affiliate swaps and the mechanics of moving swap-related risks between U.S. and non-U.S. affiliates for risk management and other purposes (including an identification of such purposes); (2) the risk implications of cross-border inter-affiliate swaps for the U.S. markets; and (3) specific means to address the risk issues potentially presented by cross-border inter-affiliate swaps.
Q26. The Commission recently adopted anti-evasion provisions relating to cross-border swap activities in its new rule 1.6.
Q27. The Commission also is considering an alternative condition to address evasion. That condition would require non-U.S. affiliates to clear all swap transactions with non-U.S. persons, provided that such transactions are related to inter-affiliate swaps which would be subject to a clearing requirement if entered into by two U.S. persons.
As explained in more detail below, the Commission has preliminarily determined that it must receive certain
Proposed § 39.6(g)(3) would set forth the requirements for transferring variation margin. Proposed § 39.6(g)(3)(i) would require that if both counterparties to the swap are financial entities, each counterparty shall pay and collect variation margin for each inter-affiliate swap for which the proposed exemption is elected. Proposed § 39.6(g)(3)(ii) would require that the swap trading relationship document set forth and describe the methodology to be used to calculate variation margin with sufficient specificity to allow the counterparties, the Commission, and any appropriate prudential regulator to calculate the margin requirement independently. The Commission believes that the proposed rule would help ensure that affiliates have a written methodology. The proposed rule also would allow affiliates to manage their risks more effectively throughout the life of the swap and to avoid disputes regarding issues such as valuation.
Pursuant to CEA section 4r,
Proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(ii)–(iii) would require the reporting counterparty to provide certain information, unless such information had been provided in a current annual filing pursuant to proposed § 39.6(g)(5). Proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(ii) would require the reporting counterparty to submit information regarding how the financial obligations of both counterparties are generally satisfied with respect to uncleared swaps. The information is valuable because it would provide the Commission a more complete view of the risk characteristics of uncleared swaps. The information also would enhance the Commission's efforts to identify and reduce potential systemic risk.
Proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(iii) would implement CEA section 2(j) for purposes of the inter-affiliate exemption.
Exemptions from the requirements of subsection (h)(1) to clear a swap and subsection (h)(8) to execute a swap through a board of trade or swap execution facility shall be available to a counterparty that is an issuer of securities that are registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l) or that is required to file reports pursuant to section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o) only if an appropriate committee of the issuer's board or governing body has reviewed and approved its decision to enter into swaps that are subject to such exemptions.
Proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(iii)(A) would require an electing SEC Filer to notify the Commission of its SEC Filer status by submitting its SEC Central Index Key number. This information would enable the Commission to cross-reference materials filed with the relevant SDR with information in periodic reports and other materials filed by the electing SEC Filer with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In addition, proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(iii)(B) would require the counterparty to report whether an appropriate committee of its board of directors (or equivalent governing body) has reviewed and approved the decision to enter into the inter-affiliate swaps that are exempt from clearing.
Finally, proposed § 39.16(g)(5) would permit counterparties to provide the information listed in proposed (g)(4)(ii)–(iii) on an annual basis in anticipation of electing the inter-affiliate clearing exemption for one or more swaps. Any such reporting under this paragraph would be effective for inter-affiliate swaps entered into within 365 days following the date of such reporting. During the 365-day period, the affiliate would be required to amend the information as necessary to reflect any material changes to the reported information. In addition, the Commission anticipates that for most corporate groups, affiliates would submit identical annual reports.
Q28. The Commission requests comment on whether affiliates would submit identical annual reports for most corporate groups.
Q29a. The Commission requests comment as to whether reporting counterparties that would not report to an SDR should be subject to swap-by-swap reporting requirements? Should the Commission allow such entities to report all information on an annual basis? Please provide any information as to the number of reporting counterparties that would be affected by such a rule change.
Q29b. The Commission requests comment as to whether different sized entities should be subject to the proposed reporting requirements or the reporting requirements for affiliates that elect the end-user exception, as applicable. If different sized entities should not be subject to such reporting requirements, please explain why. Alternatively, should the Commission
Section 15(a) of the CEA
Prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, swaps were not required to be cleared. In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, Congress adopted the Dodd-Frank Act, which, among other things, amends the CEA to impose a clearing requirement for swaps.
In the discussion that follows, the Commission considers the costs and benefits of the proposed inter-affiliate exemption to the public and market participants generally. The Commission also separately considers the costs and benefits of the conditions placed on affiliates that would elect the proposed exemption: (1) Swap trading relationship documentation, which would require affiliates to document in writing all terms governing the trading relationship; (2) centralized risk management and variation-margin requirements, which would require affiliates to subject the swap to centralized risk management and to post variation margin; and (3) reporting requirements, which would require counterparties to advise an SDR, or the Commission if no SDR is available, that both counterparties elect the inter-affiliate clearing exemption and to identify the types of collateral used to meet financial obligations. In addition to the foregoing reporting requirements, counterparties that are issuers of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or those that are required to file reports under Section 15(d) of that Act, would be required to identify the SEC central index key number and confirm that an appropriate committee of board of directors has approved of the affiliates' decision not to clear a swap. The rule also would permit affiliates to report certain information on an annual basis, rather than swap-by-swap.
Finally, the inter-affiliate clearing exemption would require one of the following four conditions be satisfied for each affiliate: The affiliate is located in the United States; the affiliate is located in a jurisdiction with a comparable and comprehensive clearing requirement; the affiliate is required to clear all swaps it enters into with non-affiliated counterparties; or the affiliate does not enter into swaps with non-affiliated counterparties.
The Commission's proposed baseline for consideration of the costs and benefits of this proposed exemption are the costs and benefits that the public and market participants (including potentially eligible affiliates) would experience in the absence of this regulatory action. In other words, the proposed baseline is an alternative situation in which the Commission takes no action, meaning that potentially eligible affiliates would be required to comply with the clearing requirement. More specifically, under the CEA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, and Commission regulations (finalized or future) inter-affiliate swaps will be subject to a clearing requirement and, depending on whether the affiliate is an SD, MSP, or eligible contract participant, a variety of record-keeping and reporting requirements. In such a scenario, the public and market participants, including corporate affiliates transacting swaps with each other, would experience the costs and benefits related to clearing and complying with Commission regulations under parts 23, 45, and 46.
The Commission also considers the regulatory landscape as it existed before the Dodd-Frank Act's enactment. Entities that transacted inter-affiliate swaps within a corporate group were neither subject to a clearing requirement nor compelled to comply with regulatory requirements, including requirements to record and report inter-affiliate swaps. Thus, measured against a pre-Dodd-Frank Act reference point, affiliates that avail themselves of the proposed exemption would experience incremental costs and benefits occasioned by compliance with the conditions for exercising the proposed exemption.
In the discussion that follows, where reasonably feasible, the Commission endeavors to estimate quantifiable dollar costs. The benefits of the proposed exemption, as well as certain costs, however, are not presently susceptible to meaningful quantification. Where it is unable to quantify, the Commission discusses proposed costs and benefits in qualitative terms.
As discussed above, inter-affiliate swaps—though possessing a lesser degree of counterparty risk than swaps transacted between non-affiliated counterparties—are not risk-free. As evidenced in the 2008 financial crisis, counterparty swap risk, transmitted systemically, can exact a heavy cost on market participants as well as the public. Thus, unconditionally exempting inter-affiliate swaps from the clearing requirement would come with a cost of increased risk that clearing is intended to contain. This includes the risk that the failure of one party to perform under the terms of a swap transaction would cause the counterparty to be unable to perform under the terms of swaps it had entered into with other counterparties, thereby causing a cascading series of non-performance throughout the financial system. Clearing both reduces this risk of non-performance and promotes confidence throughout the financial system that the failure of one firm will not lead to a systemic crisis, thereby lessening the chance of such a crisis or the need for the federal government to intervene to prevent any such failures. Accordingly, the Commission does not propose an unconditional, blanket exemption. Rather, the Commission proposes an exemption with conditions carefully tailored to offset the narrower, counterparty-risk profile that inter-affiliate swaps present relative to all swaps generally. Based on the expectation that for the subset of inter-affiliate swaps covered by this proposed exemption these conditions are capable of closely approximating the risk protections that clearing provides to swaps more generally, the Commission foresees no significant additional risk cost from the proposed exemption.
The proposed rule is exemptive and would provide potentially eligible affiliates with relief from the clearing requirement and attendant Commission regulations. As with any exemptive rule or order, the proposed rule is permissive, meaning that potentially eligible affiliates are not required to elect it. Accordingly, the Commission assumes that an entity would rely on the proposed exemption only if the anticipated benefits warrant the costs. Here, the proposed inter-affiliate clearing exemption identifies three categories of conditions that an eligible affiliate must satisfy to elect the proposed exemption: documentation, risk management, and reporting. The Commission believes that a person would have to incur costs to satisfy these conditions. The Commission also believes that an affiliate would elect the exemption only if these costs are less than the costs that an affiliate would incur should it decide not to elect the exemption.
Regarding the documentation condition, the Commission believes that affiliates electing the exemption (other than SDs/MSPs satisfying the swap documentation condition and risk-management conditions by satisfying the requirements of regulations 23.504 and 23.600, respectively) would likely incur costs to develop a standardized document to comply with the proposed § 39.6(g)(2)(ii) requirement that all terms governing the trading relationship be in writing.
Affiliates also would incur costs related to signing swap documents and retaining copies. The Commission believes that affiliates would incur less than $1,000 per year for such activities. The Commission notes, however, that these estimates may overstate the actual costs because it expects that affiliates within a corporate group would be able to share legal-drafting and record-retention costs, as well as labor costs.
The second category of conditions concerns risk management. Affiliates electing the proposed exemption would have to subject inter-affiliate swaps to centralized risk management, which would include variation margin.
Proposed § 39.6(g)(2)(iv) would require counterparties to post variation margin in compliance with proposed § 39.6(g)(3)'s documentation and other
The Commission also believes that affiliates would incur certain costs to comply with the proposed § 39.16(g)(2)(iv) condition to post variation margin. The Commission anticipates that affiliates would have to hire up to three people at an average salary of $150,000 per year to estimate the price of inter-affiliate swaps and to manage variation margin payments between affiliates. In addition, the Commission expects that companies would have to purchase equipment and software to estimate the price of inter-affiliate swaps and to subscribe to a data service. However, the Commission anticipates that such costs also would be incurred to satisfy the centralized risk management condition in proposed § 39.6(g)(2)(iii). Finally, affiliates would have to incur the opportunity costs associated with posting collateral to cover variation margin.
The third category of conditions involves reporting requirements. Proposed § 39.6(g)(4) would require affiliates to report specific information to an SDR or to the Commission if no SDR would accept such information. Proposed § 39.16(g)(4)(i) would require notice reporting on a swap-by-swap basis that two affiliates are electing the exemption and that they both meet the requirements in proposed § 39.6(g)(1)–(2). The Commission believes that each counterparty may spend 15 seconds to two minutes per swap entering a notice of election of the exemption into the reporting system. The hourly wage for a compliance attorney is $390, resulting in a per transaction cost of $1.63-$13.00.
Affiliates would incur costs to satisfy the conditions that the reporting party (1) identify how the affiliates expect to meet the financial obligations associated with their uncleared swap as required under proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(ii), and (2) provide the information required under proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(iii) if either electing affiliate is an SEC Filer. Affiliates may decide to report this information on either a swap-by-swap or annual basis, and the costs would vary depending on the reporting frequency. Regarding the financial information in proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(ii)-(iii), the Commission believes that it may take the reporting counterparty up to 10 minutes to collect and submit the information for the first transaction, and one to five minutes to collect and submit the information for subsequent transactions with that same counterparty. The hourly wage for a compliance attorney is $390 resulting in a cost of $65.00 for complying with proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(ii)–(iii) for the first inter-affiliate swap, and a cost range of $6.50–$32.50 for complying with proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(ii)–(iii) for subsequent inter-affiliate swaps.
The Commission anticipates that companies electing not to clear would have established reporting systems to comply with other Commission rules regarding swap reporting. However, all reporting counterparties likely would need to modify their reporting systems to accommodate the additional data fields required by this rule. The Commission estimates that those modifications would create a one-time programming expense of approximately one to ten burden hours per affiliate. The Commission estimates that the hourly wage for a senior programmer is $341, which means that the one-time, per entity cost for modifying reporting systems would likely be between $341 and $3,410.
An affiliate that does not function as the reporting counterparty may need to communicate information to the reporting counterparty after the swap is entered. That information could include, among other things, whether the affiliate has filed an annual report pursuant to proposed § 39.6(g)(5) and information to facilitate any due diligence that the reporting counterparty may conduct. These costs would likely vary substantially depending on how frequently the affiliate enters into swaps, whether the affiliate undertakes an annual filing, and the due diligence that the reporting counterparty chooses to conduct. The Commission estimates that a non-reporting affiliate would incur annually between five minutes and ten hours of compliance attorney time to communicate information to the reporting counterparty. The hourly wage for a compliance attorney is $390, translating to an aggregate annual cost for communicating information to the reporting counterparty of between $33 to $3,900.
The Commission expects a proportion of affiliates would choose to file an annual report pursuant to proposed § 39.6(g)(5). The annual filing option may be less costly than swap-by-swap reporting. The Commission estimates that it would take an average of 30 to 90 minutes to complete and submit this filing. The average hourly wage for a compliance attorney is $390, translating to an aggregate annual cost for submitting the annual report of between $195 to $585.
The Commission anticipates that SDRs and the Commission also would bear costs associated with the proposed reporting conditions. SDRs would be required to add or edit reporting data fields to accommodate information reported by affiliates electing the inter-affiliate clearing exemption.
Finally, the rule would impose a limitation on those affiliates electing the inter-affiliate clearing exemption. Namely, the inter-affiliate clearing exemption would require one of the following four conditions be satisfied for each affiliate: the affiliate is located in the United States; the affiliate is located in a jurisdiction with a comparable and comprehensive clearing requirement; the affiliate is required to clear all swaps it enters into with non-affiliated counterparties; or the affiliate does not enter into swaps with non-affiliated counterparties. This limitation would impose no additional cost over not providing the exemption. However, as compared to the state of regulation that existed pre-Dodd-Frank Act, this condition would impose the costs of clearing for those inter-affiliate swaps that occur in countries without a clearing regime comparable to the United States.
The CEA does not require the Commission to issue an exemption to the clearing requirement for inter-affiliate swaps. Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA, however, provides the Commission with authority to exempt certain entities and types of transactions from CEA obligations. The statutory section requires that the Commission consider two objectives when it decides to issue an exemption: (1) The promotion of responsible economic or financial innovation, and (2) the promotion of fair competition.
The Commission believes there are benefits to exempting swaps between certain affiliated entities. For example,
The Commission also is considering the previously-discussed comments that an exemption is appropriate because inter-affiliate swaps pose reduced counterparty risk relative to swaps with third parties.
The Commission recognizes that there may be a legitimate reason for inter-affiliate swaps where one affiliate is located in a country that does not have a comparable clearing regime or the non-United States counterparty is otherwise required to clear swaps with third parties. However, the Commission believes that the corporate group and financial markets may be at risk if the foreign affiliate is free to enter into a related, uncleared swap with a third party that would be subject to clearing were it entered into in the United States. On balance, the Commission believes that the risk associated with uncleared swaps necessitates that the proposed exemption be limited to swaps between affiliates located in the United States or in foreign countries with comparable clearing regimes or the non-United States counterparty is otherwise required to clear swaps with third parties or the affiliates do not enter into swaps with third parties.
Centralized-risk management and variation margin are also beneficial conditions. The requirement that an inter-affiliate swap be subject to centralized-risk management is beneficial because it is intimately connected to the variation-margin condition. Centralized-risk management establishes appropriate measurements and procedures so that affiliates can mitigate the amount being concentrated in a single treasury or conduit-type affiliate. Moreover, the Commission believes that proper risk management benefits the public by reducing risk and the losses related to defaults.
The requirement that affiliates post variation margin should protect both parties to a trade by ensuring that each party to the swap has the financial wherewithal to meet the obligations of the swap. Variation margin also would serve as a resource that could reduce losses to a counterparty when there is a default. Overall, the variation-margin condition would benefit each affiliate and the financial system, at large, by increasing the security of affiliate positions.
The final category of conditions, reporting certain information about inter-affiliate swaps, should enhance the level of transparency associated with inter-affiliate swaps activity, afford the Commission new insights into the practices of affiliates that engage in inter-affiliate swaps, and help the Commission and other appropriate regulators identify emerging or potential risks. In short, the overall benefit of reporting would be a greater body of information for the Commission to analyze with the goal of identifying and reducing systemic risk.
The Commission considered several alternatives to the proposed rulemaking. For instance, the Commission could have: (1) Chosen not to propose an inter-affiliate clearing exemption; (2) proposed an alternative definition of affiliate; or (3) decided not to place certain conditions on those electing the inter-affiliate clearing exemption. The Commission, however, has proposed what it considers a measured approach—in terms of the implicated costs and benefits of the exemption—given its current understanding of inter-affiliate swaps.
First, the Commission considered not exempting inter-affiliate swaps from the clearing requirement. Without an exemption, inter-affiliate swaps subject to a clearing requirement would have to be cleared. This alternative was not favored by the Commission because the Commission believes that there are considerable benefits of exempting inter-affiliate swaps from clearing to the market, as discussed in detail above. In addition, while the Commission does not believe inter-affiliate swaps are riskless, the Commission is considering comments that inter-affiliate swaps pose less risk than swaps with third parties because of reduced counterparty risk and therefore risk-reducing conditions may be a satisfactory alternative to clearing for these swaps. Commenters in other rulemakings as discussed above recognized implicitly risk concerns by sharing that some corporate groups manage inter-affiliate risk via centralized risk management programs that include variation-margin calculations. Consequently, it would not be prudent to exempt inter-affiliate swaps categorically from the CEA's clearing requirement without conditions that address inter-affiliate swap risk.
Second, the Commission also considered ownership requirements of greater than, and lesser than majority ownership.
Nevertheless, the Commission believes that any benefit from an ownership requirement of greater than majority ownership, in the form of reduced counterparty risk, would not be
Similarly, the Commission considered an ownership requirement of less than majority ownership. While a reduction in the ownership requirement would allow more affiliates to benefit from the exemption, it would also considerably increase the counterparty risk in the market. The Commission welcomes comments as to the costs and benefits of a decreased ownership requirement.
Finally, the Commission considered not requiring each condition—
In deciding to propose the inter-affiliate clearing exemption, the Commission assessed how to protect affiliated entities, third parties in the swaps market, and the public. The Commission sought to ensure that in the absence of a clearing requirement the risks presented by uncleared inter-affiliate swaps would be minimized should there be significant losses to one affiliate counterparty or a default of one of the affiliate counterparties. Toward that end, the Commission proposed that affiliates eligible to elect the proposed exemption must execute swap trading relationship documentation; post variation margin as part of a centralized-risk management process; and report specific information to an SDR, or to the Commission if no SDR would accept the information. As explained in this cost-benefit section, these conditions serve multiple objectives that ultimately protect market participants and the public.
For instance, the documentation requirement would reduce uncertainties where affiliates incur significant swaps-related losses or where there is a defaulting affiliate. Because the documentation would be in writing, the Commission expects that there would be less contractual ambiguity should disagreements between affiliates arise. The proposed condition that an inter-affiliate swap be subject to a centralized risk management program reasonably designed to monitor and manage risk would help mitigate the risks associated with inter-affiliate swaps. As noted throughout this proposed rulemaking, inter-affiliate swap risk could adversely impact third parties who enter into swaps that are related to an inter-affiliate swap. In addition, if inter-affiliate swap risk is not carefully monitored, there could be greater probability that an adverse financial event could lead to bankruptcy, which could harm market participants and the public overall. Similarly, the proposed condition that affiliated counterparties post variation margin should help to prevent unrealized losses from accumulating over time and thereby reduce both the chance of default and the size of any default should one occur. In turn, this should lessen the likelihood and extent of harm to third parties that enter into swaps that are related to inter-affiliate swaps.
The proposed reporting obligations would help the Commission monitor compliance with the proposed inter-affiliate clearing exemption. For example, an affiliate that also is an SEC Filer must receive a governing board's approval for electing the proposed exemption. It cannot act independently. In the Commission's opinion, the reporting conditions promote accountability and transparency, offering another public safeguard by keeping the Commission informed.
Exempting swaps between majority-owned affiliates within a corporate group from the clearing requirement would promote efficiency by reducing overall clearing costs for eligible counterparties. The Commission is also considering comments that the proposed exemption would increase the efficiency and financial integrity of markets because it would enable corporate groups to clear swaps through their treasury or conduit affiliates. As explained above,
Certain provisions of the proposed rule, such as the requirements that inter-affiliate swaps be subject to centralized risk management, that affiliates post variation margin, and that certain information be reported, also would discourage abuse of the exemption. Together, these conditions would promote the financial integrity of swap markets and financial markets as a whole.
Under Commission regulation 43.2, a “publicly reportable swap transaction,” means, among other things, “any executed swap that is an arm's length transaction between two parties that results in a corresponding change in the market risk position between the two parties.”
As a general rule, the Commission believes that clearing swaps is a sound risk management practice. But, in proposing the inter-affiliate clearing exemption, the Commission has assessed the risks of inter-affiliate swaps, and proposes that it can impose alternative, sound risk-management practices for these particular swaps in the form of conditions. In other words, a prudent use of the Commission's exemptive authority would include proposing an exemption that requires affiliates to manage risks appropriately.
The Commission believes that the proposed exemptive rulemaking would reduce the costs of transacting swaps between majority-owned affiliates. At the same time, the proposed rulemaking would foster the financial integrity of swap markets by mandating that certain conditions be satisfied by affiliates electing the inter-affiliate clearing exemption. The Commission believes that the financial savings by affiliates, and, ultimately, corporate groups would serve public-interest considerations. For example, affiliates and corporate groups could use the cost-savings to provide new services or products for the public. They could also pass-on some or all of the cost-savings through prices they charge the public for their services and products.
Q30. The Commission invites public comment on its cost-benefit considerations, including the consideration of reasonable alternatives.
Q31. If the Commission were to propose a clearing exemption limited to 100% owned affiliates, what costs and benefits would affect market participants and the public?
Q32. If the Commission were to propose a clearing exemption with an ownership requirement of greater or less than majority ownership what costs and benefits would affect market participants and the public?
Q33. If the Commission were to issue a proposed clearing exemption limited to those affiliates that file consolidated tax returns, what costs and benefits would affect market participants and the public?
Q34. Do inter-affiliate swaps affect price discovery? To what extent would the inter-affiliate clearing exemption affect price discovery?
Q35. Besides variation margin, is there a less costly risk-management tool that would serve the same risk-management objectives as variation margin?
Q36. Besides affiliates, SDRs, and the Commission, are there any other entities that might bear a direct cost as a result of the proposed inter-affiliate clearing exemption? If so, who and to what extent?
Q37. Commenters are invited to submit any data or other information that they may have quantifying or qualifying the costs and benefits of the proposal with their comment letters.
Q38. Commenters are invited to submit any data or other information that they may have quantifying or qualifying start-up and on-going costs and benefits associated with establishing a centralized risk management program.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires that agencies consider whether the proposed rules will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, provide a regulatory flexibility analysis respecting the impact.
Consistent with other Commission rulemakings, the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rules would affect the electing and reporting parties, which could be SDs, MSPs, and Eligible Contract Participants (“ECPs”). The Commission has certified previously that neither category involves small entities for purposes of the RFA in other Commission rulemakings, including those implementing requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The proposed rules also would affect SDRs, which the Commission has similarly determined not to be small entities for purposes of the RFA.
Q39. The Commission invites comments on the impact of this proposed regulation on small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”)
The title for this collection of information is “Rule 39.6(g) Affiliate Transaction Uncleared Swap Notification.” If adopted, responses to this collection of information would be mandatory. The Commission will protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act and 17 CFR part 145, “Commission Records and Information.” In addition, section 8(a)(1) of the CEA strictly prohibits the Commission, unless specifically authorized by the CEA, from making public “data and information that would separately disclose the business transactions or market positions of any person and trade secrets or names of customers.” The Commission is also required to protect certain information contained in a government system of records according to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
Proposed § 39.6(g) would set forth certain reporting conditions that must be satisfied for affiliates to elect the inter-affiliate clearing exemption. As described above, these conditions are designed to address Commission concerns regarding inter-affiliate swap risk and to provide the Commission with information necessary to regulate swaps markets. In particular, the reporting conditions in proposed § 39.6(g)(4) and the optional annual report set forth in proposed § 39.6(g)(5) would establish new collection of information requirements within the meaning of the PRA. Additionally, affiliates may be required to update their reporting systems for purposes of complying with the proposed reporting requirement, and non-reporting affiliates electing the proposed exemption may incur costs in transmitting information to their reporting counterparties.
The Commission has estimated the time burden required for entities to comply with the proposed requirements.
The total cost of the inter-affiliate clearing exemption would depend on the number of affiliates electing the proposed exemption, as well as the number of inter-affiliate swaps for which affiliates would elect to use the proposed exemption. To identify the number of affiliates that could elect the proposed exemption, the Commission is relying upon the most recent data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (“BEA”).
To obtain information on the average number of inter-affiliate swaps, the Commission surveyed five corporations.
Using the figures above, namely 2,347 MNCs with 22 subsidiaries each and each affiliate transacting an average of 2,230 swaps, the Commission has estimated that there are approximately 64,768,399 inter-affiliate swaps entered into annually. To make this calculation, the Commission assumed that all U.S. inter-affiliate swaps and most foreign inter-affiliate swaps are with a single U.S. treasury/conduit affiliate. The Commission also assumed that 75% of treasury/conduit affiliates would be subsidiaries and would therefore be subject to this rulemaking. The remaining 25% of treasury/conduit affiliates would be the parent MNC and would not be the subject of this rulemaking because in general such swaps would qualify for the end-user exception.
Q40. As discussed
Proposed § 39.6(g)(4) would require electing entities that are reporting counterparties to notify the Commission each time the inter-affiliate clearing exemption is elected by delivering specified information to a registered SDR or, if no registered SDR is available, the Commission. Except as noted below, the notification would occur only once at the beginning of the swap life cycle.
The reporting counterparty would have to report the information required in proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(i) for each swap. It would also have to report the information required in proposed §§ 39.6(g)(4)(ii)–(iii) for each swap if no annual report had been filed. To comply with proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(i), each reporting counterparty would be required to check one box indicating that both counterparties to the swap are electing not to clear the swap. The Commission expects that each reporting counterparty would likely spend 15 seconds to two minutes per transaction entering this information into the reporting system. Regarding the proposed §§ 39.6(g)(4)(ii)–(iii) information, the Commission expects that it would take the reporting counterparty up to 10 minutes to collect and submit the information for the first transaction and one to five minutes to collect and submit the information for subsequent transactions with that same counterparty. The Commission expects a compliance attorney may be responsible for the collection at $390 per hour, resulting in the following per transaction costs to reporting counterparties: A range of $1.63–$13.00 for proposed § 39.6(g)(4)(i); a cost of $65.00 for complying with proposed §§ 39.6(g)(4)(ii)–(iii) for the first inter-affiliate swap; and range of $6.50–$32.50 for complying with proposed §§ 39.6(g)(4)(ii)–(iii) for subsequent inter-affiliate swaps with the same counterparty. Table B summarizes the estimated average burden hours and costs per reporting entity under proposed § 39.6(g)(4), as follows:
The Commission
An affiliate who does not function as the reporting counterparty may need to communicate information to the reporting counterparty after the swap is entered. That information could include, among other things, information to facilitate any due diligence that the reporting counterparty may conduct. These costs would likely vary substantially depending on how frequently the affiliate enters into swaps and the due diligence that the reporting counterparty chooses to conduct. The Commission estimates that a non-reporting affiliate would incur a burden of between five minutes and ten hours annually. The hourly wage for a compliance attorney is $390, which means that the aggregate annual cost for an electing counterparty communicating information to the reporting counterparty would likely be between $33 and $3,900.
The Commission expects at least 90% of MNCs would choose to file an annual report pursuant to proposed § 39.6(g)(5). This assumption is based on feedback in comment letters submitted in response to other proposed rulemakings, in which commenters proposed an annual reporting requirement in lieu of swap-by-swap reporting. Additionally, the Commission believes that there is an economic incentive for corporate groups to file an annual report because filing annually is less costly and operationally simpler than swap-by-swap reporting. The Commission estimates that it would take an average of 30 minutes to 90 minutes to complete and submit this filing, resulting in 0.5 to 1.5 burden hours per MNC that elects to file the annual report. The average hourly wage for a compliance attorney is $390, which means that the aggregate annual cost for submitting the annual report would likely be approximately $195 to $585. Table C summarizes the estimated average burden hours and costs for modifying the reporting system, for non-reporting affiliates to communicate information to the reporting counterparty after the swap is entered into, and for providing the annual report under proposed § 39.6(g)(5), as follows:
The Commission estimates that the proposed exemption could result in an average total annual burden of 1,758,369 hours and average total annual costs of $685,309,281.
The Commission invites public comment on any aspect of the reporting burdens discussed above. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments in order to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (iii) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB, by fax at (202) 395–6566, or by email at
Business and industry, Clearing, Cooperatives, Reporting requirements, Swaps.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 17 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 is revised to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2, 6, 12a, and 24a, 7a–1 as amended by Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
2. In § 39.6, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
(g) Exemption for swaps between affiliates.
(1)
(2)
(i) Both counterparties elect not to clear the swap;
(ii)(A) A swap dealer or major swap participant that is an eligible affiliate counterparty to the swap satisfies the requirements of § 23.504; or (B) the swap is, if neither eligible affiliate counterparty is a swap dealer or major swap participant, documented in a swap trading relationship document that shall be in writing and shall include all terms governing the trading relationship between the affiliates, including, without limitation, payment obligations, netting of payments, events of default or other termination events, calculation and netting of obligations upon termination, transfer of rights and obligations, governing law, valuation, and dispute resolution procedures;
(iii) The swap is subject to a centralized risk management program that is reasonably designed to monitor and manage the risks associated with the swap. If at least one of the eligible affiliate counterparties is a swap dealer or major swap participant, this centralized risk management requirement shall be satisfied by complying with the requirements of § 23.600;
(iv) With the exception of 100% commonly-owned and commonly-guaranteed affiliates where the common guarantor is also 100% commonly-owned, for a swap for which both counterparties are financial entities, as defined in paragraph (g)(6), both parties shall pay and collect variation margin and comply with paragraph (g)(3) of this section;
(v) Each counterparty either:
(A) Is located in the United States;
(B) Is located in a jurisdiction that has a clearing requirement that is comparable and comprehensive to the clearing requirement in the United States;
(C) Is required to clear swaps with non-affiliated parties in compliance with United States law; or
(D) Does not enter into swaps with non-affiliated parties; and
(vi) The reporting counterparty for the swap, as determined in accordance with § 45.8 of this chapter, complies with paragraph (g)(4) of this section with respect to each of the counterparties.
(3)
(i) The swap trading relationship documentation required in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section must set forth the methodology to be used to calculate variation margin and describe it with sufficient specificity to allow the counterparties, the Commission, and any appropriate prudential regulator to calculate the margin requirement independently.
(ii) Variation margin calculations and payments shall start on the business day after the swap is executed and continue
(iii) Each counterparty shall pay the entire variation margin amount as calculated pursuant to paragraph (g)(3)(i) when due.
(iv) The swap trading relationship documentation required in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section shall specify for each counterparty where margin assets will be held and under what terms.
(4)
(i) Confirmation that both counterparties to the swap are electing not to clear the swap and that each of the counterparties satisfies the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section applicable to it;
(ii) For each counterparty, how the counterparty generally meets its financial obligations associated with entering into non-cleared swaps by identifying one or more of the following categories, as applicable:
(A) A written credit support agreement;
(B) Pledged or segregated assets (including posting or receiving margin pursuant to a credit support agreement or otherwise);
(C) A written guarantee from another party;
(D) The counterparty's available financial resources; or
(E) Means other than those described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C) or (D); and
(iii) If a counterparty is an entity that is an issuer of securities registered under section 12 of, or is required to file reports under section 15(d) of, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
(A) The relevant SEC Central Index Key number for that counterparty; and
(B) Acknowledgment that an appropriate committee of the board of directors (or equivalent body) of the counterparty has reviewed and approved the decision not to clear the swap.
(5)
Each reporting counterparty shall have a reasonable basis to believe that the eligible affiliate counterparties meet the requirements for the exemption under this § 39.6(g).
(6)
The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Gensler and Commissioners Chilton and Wetjen voted in the affirmative; Commissioner Sommers and O'Malia voted in the negative.
I support the proposed rules to exempt swaps between certain affiliated entities within a corporate group, known as inter-affiliates, from the clearing requirement in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
One of the primary benefits of swaps market reform is that standard swaps between financial firms will move into central clearing, which will significantly lower the risks of the highly interconnected financial system.
Transactions between affiliates, however, pose less risk to the financial system because the risks are internalized within the financial institution.
The proposed rule would allow for an exemption from clearing for swaps between affiliates under the following limitations.
First, the proposed exemption would be limited to swaps between majority-owned affiliates whose financial statements are reported on a consolidated basis.
Second, the proposed rules would require centralized risk management, documentation of the swap agreement, payment of variation margin and completion of reporting requirements.
Third, the exemption would be limited to swaps between U.S. affiliates and swaps between a U.S. affiliate and a foreign affiliate located in a jurisdiction with a comparable and comprehensive clearing regime.
This approach largely aligns with the Europeans' approach to an exemption for inter-affiliate clearing.
I look forward to the public's comments on this proposal.
We respectfully dissent from the notice of proposed rulemaking to exempt swaps between certain affiliated entities from the clearing requirement. While we wholly support a clearing exemption for swaps between affiliated entities within a corporate group, we cannot support the proposal before the Commission today because in certain instances it imposes an unnecessary requirement for variation margin on corporate entities that engage in inter-affiliate trades.
Inter-affiliate swaps enable a corporate group to aggregate risk on a global basis in one entity through risk transfers between affiliates. Once aggregated, commercial risk of various affiliates is netted, thereby reducing overall commercial and financial risk. This practice allows for more comprehensive risk management within a single corporate structure.
Another benefit to this practice is that it allows one affiliate to face the market and hedge the risk of various operating affiliates within the group. Notably, inter-affiliate swaps between majority owned affiliates do not create external counterparty exposure and therefore do not pose the systemic risks that the clearing requirement is designed to protect against. The practice actually reduces risk and simply allows for more efficient business management of the entire group.
We believe it is entirely appropriate that the Commission exempt inter-affiliate swaps from the clearing mandate. Unfortunately, this proposal inserts a requirement that most financial entities engaging in inter-affiliate swaps post variation margin to one another. It is not clear that this requirement will do anything other than create administrative burdens and operational risk while unnecessarily tying up capital that could otherwise be used for investment.
The variation margin requirement is also largely inconsistent with the requirements included in the European Market Infrastructure Regulation. As we have both made clear during the implementation process, we believe coordination with our global counterparts is critical to the success of this new framework.
Finally, the legislative history on this issue is clear. During the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act many Members' statements directly addressed the concerns regarding inter-affiliate swaps. Additionally, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority, an inter-affiliate swap exemption that does not include a variation margin requirement.
We believe this proposal may have the unintended consequence of imposing substantial costs on the economy and consumers. With this in mind, we welcome comments from the public as to the costs and benefits of the variation margin requirement and hope that we incorporate those views in adopting the final rule.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Carolina Beach, North Carolina. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of mariners on navigable waters during maintenance on the U.S. 421 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 295.6, at Carolina Beach, North Carolina. The safety zone will temporarily restrict vessel movement within the designated area starting on December 20, 2012 through October 31, 2013.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 20, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email CWO4 Joseph M. Edge, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina; telephone 252–247–4525, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has awarded a contract to American Bridge Company of Virginia Beach, Virginia to perform bridge maintenance on the U.S. 421 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 295.6, at Carolina Beach, North Carolina. The contract provides for cleaning, painting, and steel repair to commence on December 20, 2012 with a completion date of October 31, 2013. The contractor will utilize a 40 foot by 60 foot sectional barge as a work platform and for equipment staging. The Coast Guard believes that a safety zone is needed to provide a safety buffer to transiting vessels as bridge repairs present potential hazards to mariners and property due to reduction of horizontal clearance.
As a result of the potential hazards, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone that would encompass the waters directly under the U.S. 421 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 295.6, at Carolina Beach, North Carolina (34°03′21″ N, 077°53′58″ W). The safety zone would be in effect from 8 a.m.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule does not restrict traffic from transiting the designated portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, it imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is clear of impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 60 feet.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial tug and barge companies, recreational and commercial fishing vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from 8 a.m. December 20, 2012 through 8 p.m. October 31, 2013.
This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the safety zone will apply to this section of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, vessel traffic will be able to request passage by providing a one hour advanced notification to the work supervisor. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to the users of the waterway.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T05–0741 to read as follows:
(a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: This zone includes the waters directly under and 100 yards either side of the US 421 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 295.6, at Carolina Beach, North Carolina (34°03′21″ N, 077°53′58″ W).
(b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33 CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section, § 165.T05–0741. In addition the following regulations apply:
(1) All vessels requiring greater than 60 feet horizontal clearance to safely transit through the US 421 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 295.6, at Carolina Beach, North Carolina must contact the work supervisor tender on VHF–FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16 or at (410) 320–9877 one hour in advance of intended transit.
(2) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF–FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16.
(3) The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and
(ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
(c) Definitions.
(1) Captain of the Port North Carolina means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
(2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port North Carolina to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) Work Supervisor means the contractors on site representative.
(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal, State and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.
(e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m. December 20, 2012 through 8 p.m. October 31, 2013 unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before September 20, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0153, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Richard Wong, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–8726. Mr. Wong can also be reached via electronic mail at
For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this
Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule.
The General Services Administration is proposing to amend the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) by changing its personal property policy. The proposed changes will (1) include the addition of certain veterans organizations as eligible donation recipients as authorized by Public Law; (2) update and clarify language regarding the use of The United States Government Certificate to Obtain Title to a Vehicle, Standard Form 97 (SF 97); and (3) make minor clarifying edits to existing policies.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addressees shown below on or before October 22, 2012 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to FMR Case 2012–102–2 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Robert Holcombe, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management (MT), at (202) 501–3828 or by email at
This proposed amendment to part 102–37 of the Federal Management Regulation (41 CFR part 102–37) adds as potential recipients of Federal surplus property those organizations whose membership comprises substantially of veterans, as authorized by Public Law 111–338, codified at 40 U.S.C. 549(c)(3)(B)(x). This proposed amendment also adds two new subparts to part 102–37. The first proposed subpart updates and clarifies policy for Federal agencies and donation program customers regarding the use of SF 97,
Executive Orders 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This proposed 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 proposed changes to the FMR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This proposed rule is exempt from Congressional review under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.
Donation of Surplus Personal Property.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR part 102–37 as set forth below:
1. The authority for part 102–37 continues to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 549 and 121(c).
2. Amend § 102–37.25 by alphabetically adding the definition “Allocation” to read as follows:
The following definitions apply to this part:
3. Amend § 102–37.50 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c) The American National Red Cross should submit requests to GSA as described in subpart G of this part when obtaining property under the authority of 40 U.S.C. 551.
4. Amend § 102–37.60 in the first sentence by removing the words “being notified that the property is available for pickup” and adding the words “GSA allocation” in its place.
5. Amend § 102–37.125 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) Donations by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to small disadvantaged businesses under 13 CFR part 124 (although collaboration and agreement between the SBA, SASPs, and GSA is encouraged); and
6. Amend § 102–37.175 by—
(a) Removing “GSA's system, FEDS)” and adding “GSAXcess)” in its place;
(b) Designating the existing paragraph as paragraph (a); and
(c) Adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b) For the SASP (or a SASP's representative) to perform onsite screening, the screener must coordinate the onsite visit and screening with the individual holding agency or organization. The screener should ascertain the identification required and any special procedures for access to the facility or location.
7. Remove and reserve §§ 102–37.180 and 102–37.185 .
8. Amend § 102–37.380 by adding paragraph (b)(18) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(18) Organizations whose membership comprises substantially veterans (as defined under 38 U.S.C. 101), and whose representatives are recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant to the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5902. In this subsection, “substantially veterans” means at least 30 percent of the members of the requesting organization are classified as veterans, as that term is defined by 38 U.S.C. 101. The Department of Veterans Affairs maintains a searchable Web site of recognized organizations. The address is
9. Amend § 102–37.420 by adding a second and a third sentence to read as follows:
* * * In situations where there are no approvals, accreditation or licensing entities, the SASP may make a determination on conditional eligibility based on its State Plan and the provisions of this part. Conditional eligibility may be granted for a limited and reasonable time, not to exceed one year.
10. Amend § 102–37.430 by adding a third sentence to read as follows:
* * * If property is provided to the donee with conditional eligibility, and the conditional eligibility lapses (see § 102–37.420), the property must be returned to the SASP for redistribution or disposal.
11. Add Subparts I and J consisting of §§ 102–37.585 through 102–37.600 and § 102–37.605 through 102–37.610 respectively to read as follows:
The holding agency is responsible for preparing
The SASP is responsible for facilitating the transfer of the surplus vehicle to the donee in accordance with this part. The SASP should not sign the SF 97 as “transferee” unless the vehicle will be used and titled by the SASP.
The donee is responsible for processing the SF 97 in accordance with state licensing and titling authorities. The donee signs the SF 97 as “transferee.” The donee is responsible for notifying the SASP if a SF 97 is not provided by the Government within a reasonable time after vehicle transfer.
Title to the vehicle rests with the holding agency until the SF 97 is signed by the transferee. At that point, the transferee will hold conditional title until the end of the period of restriction, if applicable, under the terms of the donation.
Yes, for vehicles, the SASP and/or the transferee must follow state laws for insurance requirements of state owned vehicles and state minimum insurance requirements for other than state owned vehicles. For other assets, insurance must be acquired to at least the minimum amount as mandated by applicable law or regulation.
(a) If the loss occurs while the property is insured and in the possession (or under the control) of the SASP, the SASP may retain proceeds to cover the SASP's costs incurred to acquire and rehabilitate the property prior to its loss. GSA is entitled to proceeds in excess of the costs incurred by the state.
(b) If the loss occurs while the property is insured and in the possession (or under the control) of the donee, the donee may retain proceeds to cover the costs that the donee incurred to acquire and rehabilitate the property prior to its loss. Entitlement to insurance proceeds in excess of the costs incurred by the donee depends on the time of the loss in relation to the period of restriction if the loss was incurred:
(1) During the period of restriction imposed by GSA (
(2) During an additional period of restriction imposed by the SASP (
(3) After all periods of restriction imposed by the GSA and/or SASP, the donee is entitled to the proceeds.
12. Amend Appendix C to part 102–37 by alphabetically adding the definition of “Veterans Organizations” to read as follows:
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing to amend its Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation to require contracts for time and material or labor hours to include separate labor hour rates for subcontractors and a description of the method that will be used to record and bill for labor hours for both contractors and subcontractors.
Comments and related material submitted electronically must be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal
You may submit comments identified by DHS docket number DHS–2012–0050, using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2) By mail to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy and Legislation Branch, ATTN: Jeremy Olson, 245 Murray Lane, Bldg. 410 (RDS), Washington, DC 20528.
Jeremy Olson, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy and Legislation Branch, (202) 447–5197, or by email at
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. Comments and related materials should be organized by HSAR Part, and indicate the specific section that is being commented on. All comments received will be posted without change to
Viewing comments and documents: To view comments and read background documents related to this rulemaking, go to
This proposed rule augments two existing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) policies to create a consistent approach within DHS for awarding Time and Materials/Labor Hours (T&M/LH) contracts. Those two augmenting policies include the requirement for separate labor hour rates for T&M/LH subcontractors and the requirement for consistent practices for contractor labor hour records and labor hour billing.
The first of the two existing FAR policies provides the option to require separate labor hour rates for each subcontractor under a T&M/LH contract, in addition to the labor hour rates established for the prime contractor.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.601(e) further authorizes agencies to amend the solicitation provision at FAR 52.216–29, Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour (T&M/LH) Proposal Requirements-Non-commercial Item Acquisitions With Adequate Price Competition, to require offerors to submit offers that include separate labor hour rates for subcontractors and affiliates. The purpose of requiring offers to include such separate rates is to ensure the resulting contract or order will have individual labor hour rate schedules for each individual subcontractor and affiliate of the prime contractor and not contain only a single set of rates applicable to the prime contractor and all subcontractors.
The second of the two augmenting Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) policies that are included in this proposed rule refines long-established FAR policies on consistency between contractor recordkeeping and contractor proposal and billing practices. The proposed rule establishes policies furthering those existing FAR policies so that DHS contractors will identify their method of accounting for labor hours incurred and agree to a price adjustment if their billing practices under a T&M/LH contract they enter into with DHS results in overbilling because they had not billed consistently with their recordkeeping practices. To minimize the burden of identifying the method of recordkeeping used by a contractor, the proposed rule includes a solicitation provision in which each offeror will check one of two blocks to designate which of the two types of methods its recordkeeping system uses, record only the number of hours in a standard work period (such as a 40 hour workweek) or record all hours worked in a work period. This will apply only to hours incurred by employees who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Contractors with a T&M/LH contract would be required to substantiate the number of hours billed in order to support payment of a voucher. There would be no mandatory requirement that a contractor use one method or the other; that would be the contractor's choice. However, the contractor must consistently follow its chosen practice.
The proposed rule would revise 48 CFR part 3016, Types of Contracts and part 3052, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses.
Fixed hourly rates—FAR 16.601(e)(1) allows for three approaches in structuring solicitations for T&M/LH contracts and orders and allows agencies to make mandatory one of the three approaches identified in the solicitation provision at FAR 52.216–29(c). The proposed rule would make the procedure at FAR 52.216–29(c)(1), separate rates for each labor category, mandatory for DHS T&M/LH contracts and orders. The proposed rule provides procedures applicable to solicitations and awards for T&M/LH contracts and orders for non-commercial items using adequate price competition. The proposed rule would require offerors to propose separate, individual labor hour rates for each category of labor to be performed by the prime contractor, each subcontractor, and other divisions or subsidiaries or affiliates of the prime contractor under common control. The procedure would apply only to T&M/LH actions for non-commercial items to be awarded using adequate price competition.
The purpose of these procedures is to ensure appropriate labor hour rates are paid under T&M/LH contracts and orders. The procedures are intended to eliminate unintentional windfall payments to the prime contractor that might otherwise result from work performed by lower labor rate subcontracts or affiliates that is billed at a higher prime contractor labor hour rate.
Recording and billing hours under T&M/LH contracts and orders—The proposed rule would require all offerors seeking a T&M/LH contract or order to include a description of their method and their subcontractors' methods of accounting for uncompensated overtime performed by employees who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). It also includes a requirement that billings and payments under the resulting contracts or orders be made consistent with that description. The procedure would apply to all T&M/LH contracts and orders that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT).
The purpose of this procedure is to eliminate potential disputes regarding the hours that can be billed under T&M/LH contracts by clearly stating in the contract whether the contractor and each subcontractor will be reimbursed based on recording and billing for only the number of hours worked not in excess of a standard number of hours in a standard work period (such as a 40 hour workweek) or recording all hours worked. This procedure will ensure that billings and payments under T&M/LH contracts do not result in an unintended
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
This proposed rule, if made final, may impact a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This proposed rule augments two existing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) policies to create a consistent approach within DHS for awarding Time and Materials/Labor Hours (T&M/LH) contracts. Those two augmenting policies include the requirement for separate labor hour rates for T&M/LH subcontractors and the requirement for consistent practices for contractor labor hour records and labor hour billing.
The first of the two existing FAR policies provides the option to require separate labor hour rates for each subcontractor under a T&M/LH contract, in addition to the labor hour rates established for the prime contractor.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.601(e) further authorizes agencies to amend the solicitation provision at FAR 52.216–29, Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour (T&M/LH) Proposal Requirements-Non-commercial Item Acquisitions With Adequate Price Competition, to require offerors to submit offers that include separate labor hour rates for subcontractors and affiliates. The purpose of requiring offers to include such separate rates is to ensure the resulting contract or order will have individual labor hour rate schedules for each individual subcontractor and affiliate of the prime contractor and not contain only a single set of rates applicable to the prime contractor and all subcontractors.
The second of the two augmenting Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) policies that are included in this proposed rule refines long-established FAR policies on consistency between contractor recordkeeping and contractor proposal and billing practices. The proposed rule establishes policies furthering those existing FAR policies so that DHS contractors will identify their method of accounting for labor hours incurred and agree to a price adjustment if their billing practices under a T&M/LH contract they enter into with DHS results in overbilling because they had not billed consistently with their recordkeeping practices.
This proposed rule would establish the DHS procedure to make the FAR option for consistent use of separate rates mandatory for DHS T&M/LH contracts. It would also establish a requirement that a contractor must consistently follow its method of record keeping for labor hours billed to a DHS contract. The legal bases for this rule are 5 U.S.C. 301–302, 41 U.S.C. 1707, 41 U.S.C. 1702, 48 CFR part 1, subpart 1.3, and DHS Delegation Number 0702.
This proposed rule would apply to all entities seeking a DHS contract or order that would be either a Time and Material or a Labor Hour type of contract. DHS believes that this proposed rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule does not require contractors or subcontractors to make any substantial changes in their normal business practices nor take any substantial actions under a contract beyond previously existing government requirements.
Below are tables showing information on FY 2010 DHS awards, based on data contained in the Federal Procurement Data System, which would have been subject to this proposed rule had it been in effect at the time. These tables give a view into the numbers of entities that would be impacted by this proposed rule if the amount of contracting done by DHS is consistent with the amount performed during FY 2010.
The proposed rule contains no new information collection or reporting requirements. Offerors are already required to provide information in response to DHS solicitations and this is authorized under an existing, approved information collection. OMB Control No. 1600–0005 (Offeror submissions).
The proposed rule would not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
The requirement proposed in this rulemaking is that the prime contractor will have to calculate and propose separate rates for each such subcontractor or affiliate rather than calculating a single set of rates with all labor hours wrapped into a single set of rates covering labor provided by the prime contractor as well as labor provided by subcontractors and affiliates. The FAR provides the option to make this decision in agency procedures or to leave this decision up to the offeror or to the contracting officer. DHS has chosen to revise its agency-wide procedures and is not aware of an alternative to this proposed requirement that would accomplish the goals of the proposed requirement.
Likewise, the new requirements addressing contractors' duties to record and bill for hours under T&M/LH contracts and orders imposes no new duties or requirements on a contractor other than to identify one of two methods of record-keeping described in a solicitation provision, use its current system of recordkeeping and billing, and agree to a price adjustment if it inappropriately bills for all hours worked when it disclosed that its normal practice is to bill only for a fixed number of hours per employee per period. The only significant alternative options DHS identified were not to issue this portion of the rule or to apply the rule to all actions, rather than applying it only to actions over the SAT. Not issuing the rule was rejected because it would forgo the benefits of the rule. Applying the rule to actions under the SAT was rejected because the benefits would likely not be substantial enough under those lower value contracts to warrant the administrative effort that DHS would have to expend to enforce the clause.
DHS invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DHS also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected HSAR subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite HSAR Case 2010–001.
Under Section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by DHS employees, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The DHS will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this interim rule or any DHS policy.
This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements for which OMB approval is necessary under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). Offerors are already required to provide information in response to DHS solicitations and the burden for this is authorized under an existing, approved information collection. OMB Control No. 1600–0005 (Offeror submissions).
Government procurement.
Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend (HSAR) 48 CFR parts 3016 and 3052 as follows:
1. The authority citation for parts 3016 and 3052 are revised to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301–302, 41 U.S.C. 1707, 41 U.S.C. 1702, 48 CFR part 1, subpart 1.3, and DHS Delegation Number 0702.
2. Add section 3016.601 to subpart 3016.6 to read as follows:
(c)(2)(i)
(A) The prime contractor;
(B) Each subcontractor; and
(C) Each division, subsidiary and affiliate of the prime contractor.
In order to require each offeror to propose these separate rates for each of those labor hour categories, the contracting officer shall insert the amended FAR solicitation provision as provided in (e)(1) of this subsection. The contracting officer shall also include such separate labor hour rates for each such category of labor hours in the resulting contract(s) or order(s).
(d)(3)
(i) Definitions.
(ii) Policy. A time-and-materials and labor hour contract or order exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold may be used only if it includes a description of the method that will be used by the prime contractor and each subcontractor to record and to bill for hours worked by employees exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) under the contract or order, including overtime. The method used to record and bill for hours worked must be either to record and bill for all hours worked, or to record and bill for only the number of hours worked not in
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(e)(1)
(i) Insert the provision (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.216–29, Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements-Non-Commercial Item Acquisition With Adequate Price Competition, in the place of the provision at FAR 52.216–29, Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements-Non-Commercial Item Acquisition With Adequate Price Competition, in all solicitations contemplating use of a time-and-materials or labor-hour type of contract for noncommercial items, if the price is expected to be based on adequate competition (FAR 15.403–1(c)(1)). This provision is authorized by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.601(e)(1) which authorizes agency procedures to require modification of the FAR solicitation provision at FAR 52.216–29, Time and Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements-Non-Commercial Item Acquisitions With Adequate Price Competition. Insert the HSAR provision whole text into the solicitation to require separate proposed rates for all subcontractors and divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates of the prime contractor.
(ii) Insert the clause (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.216–75, Offeror Selection of Labor-Hour Recording and Billing Practices for Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Contracts, into each solicitation expected to result in a contract or order for (T&M/LH) exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT).
(iii) Insert the clause (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.216–76, Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Overtime Recording and Billing Practices, (or a clause substantially the same as) into time and material or labor-hour solicitations, contracts and orders exceeding the SAT and include the mark or other indication made by the contractor which of the two methods (recording all hours or prorating the excess over a standard work period) it will use during the performance of the contract/order to record and bill for hours worked.
3. Amend subpart 3052.2 by adding section 3052.216–29 to read as follows:
As prescribed in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3016.601(e)(1)(i), insert the following provision:
Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements—Non-commercial Item Acquisition With Adequate Price Competition
(a) The Government contemplates award of a Time-and-Materials or Labor-Hour type of contract resulting from this solicitation.
(b) The offeror must specify fixed hourly rates in its offer that include wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit. The offeror must specify whether the fixed hourly rate for each labor category applies to labor performed by—
(1) The offeror;
(2) Subcontractors; and/or
(3) Divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the offeror under a common control;
(c) The offeror must establish fixed hourly rates using separate rates for each category of
(End of provision)
4. Amend subpart 3052.2 by adding section 3052.216–75 as follows:
As prescribed in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3016.601(e)(1)(ii), insert the following provision:
(a) The offeror must identify the practices it intends to employ to record labor hours worked by employees exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and to bill for those hours under the prospective contract or order for which it is submitting its offer. The offeror must select one of the two available descriptions of acceptable methods as shown in HSAR 3052.216–76, Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Overtime Recording and Billing Practices-Record. The two available selections are: (i) Record and Bill For All Hours Worked, or (ii) Record and Bill Based on a Standard Number of Hours Per Standard Work Period. Whichever of the two descriptions the offeror selects will be incorporated into any resulting contract or order awarded to the offeror. By making the selection, the offeror is indicating to the Government that the selected description of recording and billing practices is consistent with the contractor's established accounting practices and this same method will be used for billing hours under the contract or order.
(b) The offeror will not be eligible for award if either:
(1) The offeror fails to indicate in its offer which of the two descriptions in paragraphs (c)(i) or (ii) below describe the offeror's method of recording and billing for labor hours to be performed under the contract or order; or
(2) The offeror submits a clarification of the clause 3052.216–76 Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Overtime Recording and Billing Practices, and the Contracting Officer had not agreed prior to submittal of offers that the offeror's clarification of the clause substantially meets the requirements of the clause.
(c) The offeror must select one of the two below descriptions of the offeror's system for recording and billing hours to be worked by employees exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) under the contract that are included in either paragraph (i) or (ii) of the clause at HSAR 3052.216–76, Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Overtime Recording and Billing Practices. If a contract or order is awarded to the offeror, the selected description will be incorporated into the contract or order.
[ ] (Check if the paragraph describes the offeror's system)—Paragraph
[ ] (Check if the paragraph describes the offeror's system)—Paragraph
(End of provision)
5. Amend subpart 3052.2 by adding section 3052.216–76 as follows:
As prescribed in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3016.601(e)(1)(iii), insert the following clause and designate either paragraph (i) or (ii), or insert a paragraph substantially the same as (i) or (ii), in accordance with the successful offeror's selection from (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.216–75, Offeror Selection of Labor Hour Recording and Billing Practices for Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Contracts.
(a) Definitions:
(b) Only the designated paragraph (i) or (ii) applies.
[ ]
The contractor (subcontractor) providing labor hours will bill the hours worked by employees exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) under its contract (or order) based on recording of all hours worked by employees, including overtime. The contractor states that its established accounting practices are to record all hours worked.
(1) If it is found after award that the contractor's established accounting practices at the time of award were not based on recording all hours worked by employees, the Government shall be entitled to a price adjustment on all payments for labor hours under the contract or order.
(2) The amount of the price adjustment for payments shall be the difference between the number of hours billed based on recording all hours worked and the hours that would have been recorded using the contractor's established accounting practices at the time of award, multiplied by the applicable fixed hourly rates.
- or -
[ ]
(End of clause)
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of the Treasury (the Department) is proposing to amend the Department of the Treasury Acquisition Regulation (DTAR) to include a contract clause on minority and women inclusion, as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the Dodd-Frank Act).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on all aspects of this proposed rule through one of these methods:
Fax and email comments will not be accepted.
You may personally inspect comments at the Department of the Treasury Library, Room 1428, Main Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC. You can make an appointment to inspect comments by calling (202) 622–0990.
Lorraine Cole, Director, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, 202–927–8181 or
Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5452, establishes an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) in each of certain agencies, including the Departmental Offices of the Department of the Treasury. Section 342(c)(2) provides that covered agencies shall require contractors to provide a written statement that the “contractor shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce of the contractor, and as applicable, subcontractors.” This rule will implement the statement required by the Dodd-Frank Act through a contract clause.
The proposed contact clause, which is similar to those adopted by other OMWI agencies, requires that a contractor make good faith efforts to include minorities and women in its workforce. This standard is derived from section 342(c)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides for remedies, including termination, against a contractor who fails to make good faith efforts to include minorities and women in its workforce. Treasury interprets “good faith efforts” to mean efforts consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such as the identification and elimination of employment barriers, the widespread publication of employment opportunities, and other forms of outreach to minorities and women.
Section 342 applies to “all contracts * * * for services of any kind,” but the section does not define the term “contract.” Treasury proposes to apply the clause to all service contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold. As noted above, section 342 applies to Treasury Departmental Offices (DO). DO does not currently include an office responsible for operational procurement; acquisitions in support of DO are performed primarily by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Treasury Procurement Services. The clause will be included in all contracts in support of requirements originating from DO, regardless of the Treasury component performing the acquisition.
Because this proposed rule relates to public contracts, it is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. However, it is being published for public comment pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
First, this rule will not affect a substantial number of small entities. While this rule will affect all contracts for services above the simplified acquisition threshold ($150,000), it will not affect a substantial number of small entities because it will only apply to those entities that actually contract with Departmental Offices. In fiscal year 2011, DO contracted with 370 small businesses.
Additionally, the rule's economic impact is not expected to be significant. The rule satisfies the statutory requirement that contractors affirm a commitment to the fair inclusion of minorities and women in the workforce, but does so in a way that minimizes burden on contractors. The rule provides maximum flexibility for contractors in implementing the statutory requirement because it does not impose any specific requirements on contractor hiring. Further, most contractors are already subject to and have implemented other FAR requirements that will satisfy this rule's requirements. Essentially all contracts to which this requirement applies are subject to FAR Clause 52.222–26, Equal Opportunity, which requires, among other things, that contractors complete the EEO Form 1 containing workforce demographic data. Thus, contractors are already required to compile and retain much of the data required by this clause. Further, contractors with over 50 employees are required by Department of Labor regulations to develop affirmative action plans; development of and compliance with such a plan would normally satisfy the requirements of the clause.
Notwithstanding the certification that this rule, if finalized, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Department invites comments on the rule's impact on small entities.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The information collections contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned control number 1505–0080. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), an agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
Government procurement.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 48 CFR Chapter 10 as follows:
1. Add part 1022 to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 5452.
Insert the clause at 1052.222–70, Minority and Women Inclusion, in all solicitations and contracts in support of Departmental Offices for services that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
2. Add subpart 1052.2 to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 5452(c)(2).
As prescribed in 1022.7000, insert the following clause:
“Contractor confirms its commitment to equal opportunity in employment and contracting. To implement this commitment, the Contractor shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible consistent with applicable law, the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce. The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause in all subcontracts under this Contract whose dollar value exceeds $150,000. Within ten business days of a written request from the contracting officer, or such longer time as the contracting officer determines, and without any additional consideration required from the Agency, the Contractor shall provide documentation, satisfactory to the Agency, of the actions it (and as applicable, its subcontractors) has undertaken to demonstrate its good faith effort to comply with the aforementioned provisions. For purposes of this contract, “good faith effort” may include actions by the contractor intended to identify and, if present, remove barriers to minority and women employment or expansion of employment opportunities for minorities and women within its workforce. Efforts to remove such barriers may include, but are not limited to, recruiting minorities and women, providing job-related training, or other activity that could lead to those results.
“The documentation requested by the contracting officer to demonstrate “good faith effort” may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following:
1. The total number of Contractor's employees, and the number of minority and women employees, by race, ethnicity, and gender (e.g., an EEO–1);
2. A list of subcontract awards under the Contract that includes: dollar amount, date of award, and subcontractor's race, ethnicity, and/or gender ownership status;
3. Information similar to that required in item 1, above, with respect to each subcontractor; and/or
4. The Contractor's plan to ensure that minorities and women have appropriate opportunities to enter and advance within its workforce, including outreach efforts.
“Consistent with Section 342(c)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111–203) (Dodd-Frank Act), a failure to demonstrate to the Director of the Agency's Office of Minority and Women Inclusion such good faith efforts to include minorities and women in the Contractor's workforce (and as applicable, the workforce of its subcontractors), may result in termination of the Contract for default, referral to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or other appropriate action.
“For purposes of this clause, the terms “minority,” “minority-owned business” and “women-owned business” shall have the meanings set forth in Section 342(g) of the Dodd-Frank Act.”
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of intent and request for nominations.
We are giving notice that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to renew the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health (Committee). The Secretary has determined that the Committee is necessary and in the public interest. We are also giving notice that the Secretary is soliciting nominations for membership for this Committee.
Consideration will be given to nominations received on or before September 10, 2012.
Mrs. R.J. Cabrera, Designated Federal Official, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 35, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 8513478 (or 800–877–8339 for the hearing impaired), email:
Nomination packages may be sent by postal mail or commercial delivery to The Honorable Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Attn: Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health. Nomination packages may also be faxed to (301) 734–3121.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to renew the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health (the Committee) for 2 years.
The Committee advises the Secretary on strategies, policies, and programs to prevent, control, or eradicate animal diseases. The Committee considers agricultural initiatives of national scope and significance and advises on matters of public health, conservation of national resources, stability of livestock economies, livestock disease management and traceability strategies, prioritizing animal health imperatives, and other related aspects of agriculture. The Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson are elected by the Committee from among its members.
A request for nominations for membership was published
The Secretary will select up to 20 members from across the agricultural community, including producers, processors, marketers, researchers, State and Tribal agricultural agencies, trade associations, and others, to obtain the broadest possible representation on the Committee, in accordance with the FACA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Regulation 1041–1. Equal opportunity practices, in line with the USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision to a currently approved information collection in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Regulations (7 CFR part 246) for the reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with the WIC Program regulations.
Written comments must be received by October 22, 2012.
Comments may be sent via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval, and will become a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection form and instructions should be directed to: Donna Hines,
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
The reporting and recordkeeping burdens covered by this Information Collection Burden (ICB) include requirements that involve the certification of WIC participants; the nutrition education that is provided to participants; the authorization, training and monitoring of vendors; and the collection of vendor pricing information in order to comply with the Federal regulations regarding WIC cost containment. State Plans are the principal source of information about how each State agency operates its WIC Program. Information collected from participants and local agencies is collected through State-developed forms or Management Information Systems. The information collected is used by the Department of Agriculture to manage, plan, evaluate, make decisions and report on WIC Program operations. This information collection is requesting a revision in the burden hours due to program changes that have reduced the frequency of certification requirements for children and due to program adjustments that primarily reflect expected changes in the number of WIC participants, WIC authorized vendors, and WIC local agencies. The revisions increase approved reporting burden by 42,215 hours and increase the total approved recordkeeping burden by 372,489 hours.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie (MBS) Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in North Bend, Washington on September 7, 2012. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 112–141) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review and rank 2013 Title II RAC proposals.
The meeting will be held on Friday, September 7, 2012 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Snoqualmie Ranger District office, North Bend Conference Room, located at 902 SE North Bend Way, North Bend, Washington 98045–9545.
Jim Franzel, District Ranger, Snoqualmie Ranger District, phone (425) 888–8751, email
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Snoqualmie Ranger District, 902 SE North Bend Way, North Bend, Washington 98045–9545.
More information will be posted on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Web site at:
Comments may be sent via email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meetings.
The Pike & San Isabel Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Pueblo, Colorado. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is for project discussion and recommendation to the Designated Federal Official.
The meetings will be held on September 5 and September 27, and will begin at 10:00 a.m.
The meetings will be held at the Supervisor's Office of the Pike & San Isabel National Forests, Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands (PSICC) at 2840 Kachina Dr., Pueblo, Colorado. Written comments should be sent to Barbara Timock, PSICC, 2840 Kachina Dr., Pueblo, CO 81008. Comments may also be sent via email to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at PSICC, 2840 Kachina Dr., Pueblo, CO 81008. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 719–553–1415 to facilitate entry into the building.
Barbara Timock, RAC coordinator, USDA, Pike & San Isabel National Forests, 2840 Kachina Dr., Pueblo, CO 81008; (719) 553–1415; Email
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.
To recommend project proposals, the PSI–RAC will convene a meeting. Decisions will be made during this meeting and the RAC will report out at the next meeting. The September 5 and September 27 meetings are open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Review project proposals, (2) Vote on and recommend projects to the Designated Federal Official, (3) Public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by September 4, 2012 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Yreka, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 112–141) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is for the committee to hear project status, review project proposals, and to vote and make recommendations for funding. Opportunity for public comment will be provided.
The meeting will be held Monday, September 17, 2012, at 4:00 p.m. and, if needed, the meeting will be continued Monday, September 24, at 4:00 p.m. to recommend projects by the September 30, 2012 deadline.
The meeting will be held at the Klamath National Forest Supervisor's Office, main conference room, at 1711 South Main Street in Yreka, CA.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Kerry Greene, Community Development and Outreach Specialist, phone: (530) 841–4484 or email:
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. Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed For Further Information.
The following business will be conducted: Project updates and financial status, and review of project proposals currently under consideration by the RAC. New project proposals are now being accepted. The committee may vote to recommend projects for the funding. A meeting agenda and copies of submitted proposals can be accessed at:
Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in advance to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to the Klamath National Forest, 1711 S. Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097, attention: Kerry Greene or by email to
A summary of the meeting will be posted at:
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Cherokee Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Knoxville, Tennessee. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 112–141) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects authorized under title II of the Act.
The meeting will be held September 14, 2012 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the USDA Forest Service—Forest Inventory and Analysis Office at 4700 Old Kingston Pike, Knoxville, TN 37919.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Terry McDonald, RAC Coordinator, Cherokee National Forest, 423–476–9729,
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.
The following business will be conducted: Review the status of approved projects for FY08–FY11; Recommend projects for FY12. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 7, 2012 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to U.S. Forest Service, 2800 Ocoee Street North, Cleveland, TN 37312, ATTN: Terry McDonald, or by email to
All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Rogue-Umpqua Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Roseburg, Oregon. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 112–141) (the Act) and operates in compliance
The meeting will be held September 18, 2012, 8:30 a.m., and Sept. 19, 2012, 8:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Supervisor's Office of the Umpqua National Forest, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon, in the Diamond Lake Conference Room.
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. The public may inspect comments received at the Supervisor's Office for the Umpqua National Forest. Please call ahead to 541–957–3200 to facilitate entry into the building to view comments.
Cheryl Caplan, Public Affairs Officer, Umpqua National Forest, 541–957–3270,
The following business will be conducted: Approval of agenda and minutes, public forum opportunity, election of chair, review of fiscal years 2009 through 2012 projects, and review and recommendation of individual fiscal year 2013 Title II project nominations. The agenda is available at
A summary of the meeting will be posted at
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482–0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. (Novartis) submitted a notification of proposed production activity for the company's facilities located within Sites 3 and 4 of FTZ 59, in Lincoln, Nebraska. The facilities are used for the production of dosage-form and bulk-quantity mixed medicines, including those containing penicillin, alkaloids, analgesics, antibiotics, antihistamine/decongestants, cold remedies, anti-infectives, dermatological and anesthetic agents, digestive treatments, insulin, vitamins, and hormones; vitamins and provitamins; food preparations, including those containing fiber and various digestive products, lozenges, nicotine gum, and cold symptom products; preparations for skincare; pharmaceutical reference standards; and medicines for veterinary use.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Novartis from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Novartis would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to the finished products (mostly duty-free, but some would be up to 6.4 percent for certain food preparations) for the foreign-status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
Components and materials sourced from abroad include: Menthol; ibuprofen; sodium salicylate (USP); aspirin; terbinafine; diphenhydramine citrate (USP); diclofenac sodium; acetaminophen; rivastigmine hydrogen tartrate; tolnaftate (USP/EP); lansoprazole; loratadine; pyrilamine maleate (USP); dextromethorphan HBR (USP); clemastine fumarate; clomipramine hydrochloride; acesulfame K; benzalkonium chloride; microcrystalline cellulose; inulin; aloe vera gel; carrageenan (viscarin GP109F); wheat dextrin; insulin; benzyl alcohol NF; camphor USP; synthetic; anhydrous citric acid USP/EP find grain; butylparaben NF; methylparaben NF; diphenhydramine citrate USP; aspartame NF; aspartame; coated acetaminophen crystals; xylometazoline HCL; heterocyclic compounds; dextromethorphan hydrobromide USP; crospovideone NF; polyplasdone xl-10; clomicalm A.S.; isradipine (USP); desiccant; croscarmellose sodium NF; microcellulose; bulk penicillin mixed medicines; bulk mixed drugs; including penicillins; antibiotics; hormones; and alkaloids; caffeine; dextrins and modified starches; gums; guar gum; oleoresins; balsam gum; ginseng; vegetable extracts and similar thickeners; iron oxides and hydroxides; disodium carbonate; carbonates; flavoring compounds; aniline derivative compounds; amino-alcohol-phenols; amino-acid-phenols; other nitrile function compounds; other antihistamine chemicals; other vegetable alkaloids and derivatives; articles of plastic, including bands, bags and fiber drum liners, bottles, plugs, caps, drums, tubes, packaging materials, droppers, stoppers, dispensing tubes, plug dip tubes, dosage cups and syringes; stopper dip tube assemblies; aluminum collapsible tubes; aluminum containers; artificial flavors; pine needle oil; benorilate; and sodium cyclamate (duty rates range from duty free to 6.5%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 1, 2012.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary; Foreign-Trade Zones Board; Room 21013; U.S. Department of Commerce; 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002; and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site; which is accessible via
For further information; contact Diane Finver at
Winnebago Industries, Inc. (Winnebago), operator of Subzone 107A, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for their facilities in Forest City and Charles City, Iowa. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 24, 2012.
The subzone currently has authority to produce and warehouse recreational vehicles under FTZ procedures using certain imported components. The current request is to cut, sew, upholster and warehouse wet coagulation process 100% polyurethane coated fabric for use as upholstery in motor homes. Production under FTZ procedures for this activity could exempt Winnebago from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Winnebago would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to motor homes (duty rate 2.5%) for the foreign status input noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
Components and materials sourced from abroad include: wet coagulation process 100% polyurethane coated fabric (duty rate 7.5%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 1, 2012.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
The President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA) will meet on September 6, 2012, 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4830, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The PECSEA provides advice on matters pertinent to those portions of the Export Administration Act, as amended, that deal with United States policies of encouraging trade with all countries with which the United States has diplomatic or trading relations and of controlling trade for national security and foreign policy reasons.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 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 for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that 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 the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on August 13, 2012, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet September 11, 2012, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 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 for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that 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 the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 11, 2012, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on September 13, 2012, 9:30 a.m., in the 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 transportation and related equipment or technology.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on October 21, 2011, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order.
On June 21, 2012, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the
Catherine Bertrand, telephone: (202) 482–3207, or Josh Startup, telephone: (202) 482–5260; AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On June 21, 2012, the Department published the affirmative
We have not made any changes to the
The products covered by the order are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.
The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, 2106.90.99, 0409.00.0010, 0409.00.0035, 0409.00.0005, 0409.00.0045, 0409.00.0056, and 0409.00.0065 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.
The merchandise subject to the anticircumvention inquiry are blends of honey and rice syrup, regardless of the percentage of honey they contain, from the PRC.
In accordance with section 781(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of the proposed inclusion of blends of honey and rice syrup in the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC.
As there is no basis for the Department to reconsider its decision, we continue to find that blends of honey and rice syrup are later-developed merchandise. As explained in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2) and (3), we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of blends of honey and rice syrup, from the PRC that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 7, 2011, the date of initiation of this anticircumvention inquiry.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), 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 the APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(j).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe from Romania. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman S.A. (AMTP). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011. We preliminarily determine that AMTP did not sell the subject merchandise at less than normal value during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Thomas Schauer or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410 or (202) 482–1690, respectively.
On August 10, 2000, the Department published the antidumping duty order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe (small diameter seamless pipe) from Romania.
On August 31, 2011, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), AMTP, a Romanian producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, requested an administrative review of itself. On October 3, 2011, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the order.
On January 30, 2012, the petitioner, United States Steel Corporation (the petitioner) alleged that AMTP made sales of small diameter seamless pipe from Romania at prices below the cost of production (COP) in its home market during the POR.
For purposes of this review, the products covered include small diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of this review also include all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification. Specifically included within the scope of this review are seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.
The merchandise subject to this review is typically classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.19.10.20, 7304.19.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.
Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A–106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A–335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A–106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A–106 standard.
Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A–53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other
Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.
Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A–589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A–795) are used for the conveyance of water.
Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A–106, ASTM A–53, API 5L–B, and API 5L–X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A–106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A–106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.
Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or “hollow profiles” of carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold under ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications.
The scope of this review includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of these reviews. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application.
For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A–106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A–161, ASTM A–192, ASTM A–210, ASTM A–252, ASTM A–501, ASTM A–523, ASTM A–524, and ASTM A–618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this review.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this review are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished OCTG are excluded from the scope of this review, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line, or pressure applications.
To determine whether AMTP's sales of small diameter seamless pipe from Romania were made in the United States at less than normal value, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.
When making this comparison in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining an appropriate product comparison to the U.S. sale. If an identical home-market model with identical physical characteristics as described below was reported, we made comparisons to weighted-average home-market prices that were based on all sales of the identical product during a contemporaneous month. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified sales of the most similar merchandise that were most contemporaneous with the U.S. sale in accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(f).
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we compared products produced by AMTP and sold in the U.S. and home markets on the basis of the comparison product which was closest in terms of the physical characteristics to the product sold in the United States. In the order of importance, these characteristics are specification/grade, manufacturing process, outside diameter, wall thickness, surface finish, and end finish.
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, normally, the Department will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. The regulation provides further that the Department may use a date other than the date of the invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. The Department has a long-standing practice of finding that, where shipment date precedes invoice date, shipment date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established.
For all U.S. sales, AMTP reported the date of shipment from the mill in Romania as the date of sale because the date of shipment preceded the invoice date. With respect to AMTP's U.S. sales, price and quantity are subject to change until the merchandise is shipped from the mill in Romania. Because the material terms of sale are established at shipment, prior to invoicing, we have
AMTP reported the earlier of shipment date or invoice date for its home market sales. With respect to AMTP's home market sales, price and quantity are subject to change until invoicing, except where invoicing occurs after shipment, in which case the material terms are set when the product is shipped. Accordingly, we have used the date of sale as reported by AMTP.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for AMTP because the subject merchandise was sold in the United States by a U.S. seller affiliated with the producer.
We calculated CEP based on the delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes direct selling expenses and indirect selling expenses. Finally, we made an adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal value (
Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegation, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product in the home market were made at prices below their COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether sales were made at prices below their respective COP.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product plus an amount for general and administrative expenses, and financial expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by AMTP with one exception: We increased the reported costs using the major-input adjustment for an affiliated-party input pursuant to section 773(f)(3) of the Act.
On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the sales were made at prices below the COP. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported home market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts and rebates, selling and packing expenses.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below cost sales of that product because we determine that the below cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than COP, we determine that such sales have been made in “substantial quantities” and, thus, we disregard below cost sales.
In this case, we found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of AMTP's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
We based normal value on the starting prices to home market customers. We made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, and for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses from normal value.
The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer,
To test whether AMTP's sales to affiliated parties were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties
To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer.
During the POR, AMTP reported that it sold the foreign like product in the home market through a single channel of distribution and that the selling activities associated with all sales through this channel of distribution did not differ. We found no evidence to contradict AMTP's representations. Accordingly, we found that the home market channel of distribution constituted a single level of trade.
All of AMTP's U.S. sales were CEP sales. We identified the level of trade based on the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. Most of the selling activities are performed by the U.S. affiliate and, after eliminating expenses and profit associated with those selling activities, we found that AMTP performed few selling activities and that the intensity levels for these activities were very small in comparison to the intensity levels for activities performed for the home market level of trade. Therefore, we have concluded that CEP sales constitute a different level of trade from the level of trade in the home market and that the home market level of trade was at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP level of trade.
We were unable to match CEP sales at the same level of trade in the home market or to make a level-of-trade adjustment because there was no level of trade in the home market equivalent to the CEP level of trade. Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine a level-of-trade adjustment and the home market level of trade is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP, we made a CEP-offset adjustment to NV for all such sales. The CEP offset was the sum of indirect selling expenses incurred on home market sales up to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the U.S. sales.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that no dumping margin exists for AMTP for the period August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011.
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published.
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If AMTP's weighted-average dumping margin is above
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by AMTP where AMTP did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification,
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for AMTP will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 13.06 percent, the all-others rate established in
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Wednesday, August 29, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will convene August 29, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time that day.
The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the
Karen Lellock, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899–4800, telephone number (301) 975–4269, email:
The MEP Advisory Board (Board) is composed of 10 members, appointed by the Director of NIST. MEP is a unique program consisting of centers across the United States and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. The Board provides a forum for input and guidance from the MEP program stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of tools and services focused on supporting and growing the U.S. manufacturing industry and provides advice on MEP programs, plans, and policies, assesses the soundness of MEP plans and strategies, and assesses current performance against MEP program plans.
This meeting will focus on (1) a review of MEP's work with several states on the development of plans to support the growth of advanced manufacturing industries, (2) an update on NIST manufacturing initiatives, and (3) an update on MEP centers' implementation of key initiatives. The agenda may change to accommodate other Board business.
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the MEP Advisory Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments at the beginning of the meeting. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be no more than three to five minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the MEP Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899–4800, or via fax at (301) 963–6556, or electronically by email to
All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Karen Lellock by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Wednesday, August 22, 2012. Non-U.S. citizens must also submit their country of citizenship, title, employer/sponsor, and address. Ms. Lellock's email address is
Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office (AMNPO), housed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), announces the third workshop in a series of public workshops entitled “Designing for Impact: Workshop on Building the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.” This workshop series provides a forum for the AMNPO to introduce the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) and its regional components, Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation (IMIs), and for public discussion of this new initiative that was announced by President Obama on March 9, 2012.
The Designing for Impact workshop series is organized by the federal interagency AMNPO, in cooperation with stakeholders and local organizations. AMNPO partner agencies include the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Department of Defense; Department of Energy's Advanced Manufacturing Office; Department of Labor; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and National Science Foundation. Local hosts and co-organizers for the third workshop event include the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering's University-Industry
The third public workshop in this series will be held on Thursday, September 27, 2012 from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Pacific time. Event check-in will begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. Pacific time. Please see registration information in the
The third public workshop in this series will be held at Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, 100 Academy, Irvine, CA 92617.
Michael Schen, (301) 975–6741,
15 U.S.C. 272(b)(1).
Members of the public wishing to attend this public workshop are encouraged to register in advance and may do so online through the event Web site:
The proposed NNMI initiative focuses on strengthening and ensuring the long-term competitiveness and job-creating power of U.S. manufacturing. The constituent IMIs will bring together industry, universities and community colleges, federal agencies, and U.S. states to accelerate innovation by investing in industrially-relevant manufacturing technologies with broad applications to bridge the gap between basic research and product development, provide shared assets to help companies—particularly small manufacturers—access cutting-edge capabilities and equipment, and create an unparalleled environment to educate and train students and workers in advanced manufacturing skills. The President's proposed FY 2013 budget includes $1 billion for this proposed initiative.
Each IMI will serve as a regional hub of manufacturing excellence, providing the innovation infrastructure to support regional manufacturing and ensuring that our manufacturing sector is a key pillar in an economy that is built to last. Each IMI also will have a well-defined technology focus to address industrially-relevant manufacturing challenges on a large scale and to provide the capabilities and facilities required to reduce the cost and risk of commercializing new technologies.
In his March 9, 2012, announcement, President Obama proposed building a national network consisting of up to 15 IMIs.
On December 15, 2011, Commerce Secretary John Bryson announced the AMNPO that is hosted by the NIST.
The AMNPO has held two prior Designing for Impact workshops as part of its strategy for soliciting nation-wide input on building the NNMI. The first workshop was held on April 25, 2012, at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, and the second on July 9, 2012, at Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Ohio. On May 4, 2012, the AMNPO issued a Request for Information (RFI), seeking public comment on specific questions related to the structure and operations of the NNMI and IMIs. The RFI was published in the
Announcements of additional workshops may be found at:
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 October 22, 2012.
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 Katie Davis, (727) 824–5399 or
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.
Recreational catch reporting provides important data used to monitor catches of Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) and supplements other existing data collection programs. Data collected through this program are used for both domestic and international fisheries management and stock assessment purposes.
Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) catch reporting provides real-time catch information used to monitor the
Atlantic billfish and swordfish are managed internationally by ICCAT and nationally under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This collection provides information needed to monitor the recreational catch of Atlantic blue and white marlin, which is applied to the recreational limit established by ICCAT, and the recreational catch of North Atlantic swordfish, which is applied to the U.S. quota established by ICCAT. This collection also provides information on recreational landings of West Atlantic sailfish which is unavailable from other established monitoring programs. Collection of sailfish catch information is authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for purposes of stock management.
Respondents reporting BFT landings in states (and the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico) other than Maryland and North Carolina may use either an internet Web site or an interactive voice response (IVR) telephone system. Respondents reporting Atlantic marlin, West Atlantic sailfish, or North Atlantic swordfish in states (and the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico) other than Maryland or North Carolina may use either an internet Web site or a toll-free telephone number to report landings information. In Maryland and North Carolina, a paper reporting system is used for all of the aforementioned species. Under state law, respondents in Maryland and North Carolina must submit a landing card at a state-operated reporting station. States that participate in a landing card program must submit weekly reports and one annual report to NOAA to summarize landings and results to date.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS, Southeast Region, will hold workshops to discuss administrative changes to the Gulf of Mexico Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) programs. Workshops will be open to the public. Topics to be discussed during the workshops include: Ex-vessel price reporting, share and allocation price reporting, landing notification and landing transaction procedures, measures to enhance IFQ enforceability, offloading requirements, and other administrative changes.
The workshop dates are:
1. Wednesday, September 5, 2012, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Galveston, TX;
2. Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Madeira Beach, FL; and
3. Wednesday, September 19, 2012, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Panama City, FL.
The workshop locations are:
1. Galveston—Holiday Inn, 5002 Seawall Boulevard, Galveston, TX;
2. Madeira Beach—City of Madeira Beach, 300 Municipal Drive, Madeira Beach, FL; and
3. Panama City—Courtyard Marriott, 905 East 23rd Place, Panama City, FL.
NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, IFQ Customer Service, phone: 866–425–7627; email:
The primary purpose of these workshops is to discuss potential changes to Gulf of Mexico IFQ programs. The red snapper IFQ program was implemented in 2007 and the grouper-tilefish IFQ program was implemented in 2010. During this time frame, NMFS has received input and comments from fishermen, dealers, and state and Federal law enforcement agents on potential administrative changes to the IFQ program. Additionally, price reporting problems associated with submission of ex-vessel, share, and allocation price data are hindering NMFS from fully evaluating the economic effects of the IFQ program. NMFS is seeking input from fishermen, dealers, and other constituents on ways to improve price reporting. NMFS is also seeking input on procedural changes to landing notifications, landing transactions, offloading requirements, and other measures intended to enhance IFQ enforcement. No management actions will be decided at the workshops. Constituents will be asked to provide recommendations for further consideration by NMFS.
This meeting is physically accessible by people with disabilities. Requests for information packets or other auxiliary equipment should be made at least 5
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) VMS/Enforcement Committee and Advisory Panel will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 6, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Radisson Hotel Plymouth Harbor, 180 Water Street, Plymouth, MA 02360; telephone: (508) 747–4900; fax: (508) 746–2609.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
The VMS/Enforcement Committee and Advisory Panel will meet to discuss and make recommendations for NOAA enforcement priorities for 2013. They will provide an open comment period/webinar for the fishing industry, concerning Compliance and Effectiveness of Regulations for New England Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). Also on the agenda will be to make recommendations for changes to gear stowage rules across all New England FMPs, and contact the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council with these recommendations concerning their FMPs. The Committee and Advisory Panel will make recommendations on the Proposed Information Collection, Northeast Region Logbook Family of Forms
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that a major amendment to Permit No. 15748 has been issued to Alaska SeaLife Center (ASLC), Seward, AK.
The permit amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376; and Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213; phone (562) 980–4001; fax (562) 980–4018.
Joselyd Garcia-Reyes or Tammy Adams, (301) 427–8401.
On May 7, 2012, notice was published in the
The amended permit authorizes takes of 35 weaned pups/juveniles over the life of the permit for the deployment of instrumentation; increases the number of annual takes per animal of weaned pups/juveniles and adult females from 2 to 3; adds nasal, oral, and rectal swab collection (one of each per animal) in weaned pups/juveniles and adult females; adds the use of spray lidocaine or similar agent; adds stable isotope analysis to compare stable isotope values of Weddell seals in the Ross Sea in the early 1900s to today; and adds an influenza A analysis using the requested swab collection to understand the exposure of pathogens to Antarctic marine mammals. The amended permit is valid through the expiration date of the original permit, August 30, 2015.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received a request from the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) for an incidental take authorization to take small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and gray whales, by harassment, incidental to construction activities associated with the East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SF–OBB) in California. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an authorization to CALTRANS to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of marine mammals for a period of 1 year. NMFS is also requesting comments, information, and suggestions concerning CALTRANS' application and the structure and content of future regulations.
Comments and information must be received no later than September 20, 2012.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
A copy of the renewal request may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for a one-year authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment, provided that there is no potential for serious injury or mortality to result from the activity. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.
On October 19, 2011, CALTRANS submitted a request to NOAA requesting an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of California sea lions (
An IHA was previously issued to CALTRANS for this activity on February 7, 2011 and it expired on February 6, 2012 (76 FR 7156, February 9, 2011). No in-water construction activity was conducted during the period covered by that IHA. CALTRANS' renewal application indicates that the next stage of the construction activities will involve dismantling of the existing bridge, which is expected to start in fall 2013. However, some preparatory construction activities related to the dismantling may take place as early as the summer 2012. CALTRANS also states that the dismantling of the existing east span may take up to five years to complete, therefore, a five-year LOA under a rulemaking may seem to be preferable. However, CALTRANS also indicated that activities involving the existing bridge dismantling are likely to differ from year to year, and the agency may not be able to predict annual construction activities in advance. Therefore, it is most likely that CALTRANS will pursue annual IHAs to take marine mammals incidental to its construction activities. NMFS is requesting public comment on whether issuance of five-year regulations would be preferable to issuance of multiple IHAs. A detailed description of the proposed SF–OBB East Span project is provided in the CALTRANS' IHA application, and is summarized below.
Construction activities for the replacement of the east span of the SF–OBB commenced in 2002 and are currently ongoing. The new bridge will consist of four structural sections including (1) the Yerba Buena Island (YBI) Transition Structure, (2) the Self-
The foundations for the piers of the new east span consist of large-diameter steel pipe piles driven into the Bay floor. Construction of pier foundations required driving a total of 259 in-Bay large-diameter permanent steel pipe piles. Of these, 189 piles were 2.5 meters (8.2 feet) in diameter and 70 piles were 1.8 meters (5.9 feet) in diameter. The larger 2.5-meter (8.2-foot) diameter piles support the Skyway and SAS sections of the replacement bridge, and were driven to depths ranging from about −66 meters to about −108 meters (about −217 feet to about −354 feet). The smaller 1.8-meter (5.9-foot) diameter piles support the Oakland Touchdown structures, and were driven to tip elevations ranging from about 41 meters to about 65 meters (135 feet to about 213 feet) below the sediment. All in-Bay pier foundations for the new east span have been constructed and the driving of in-Bay large-diameter permanent steel pile piles was complete, as of 2009.
To construct all permanent structures, it was necessary to install temporary piles to support temporary structures, supports, falsework, and trestles. These temporary structures were required to facilitate construction and support the permanent structures until they were self-supporting. Since the temporary structures were contractor-designed, their exact nature (size, type, quantity, etc.) was not known until the contractors submitted their plans to CALTRANS. To date a total of 2,180 temporary piles have been installed. This includes H-piles, cast-in-drill-hole (CIDH) piles and steel pipe piles ranging from 0.61 meter (24 inches) to 1.52 meters (60 inches) in diameter. All in-water temporary pile installation for the construction of the east span was complete, as of 2009.
On November 10, 2003, NMFS issued an IHA to CALTRANS, authorizing the take of a small number of marine mammals incidental to the construction of the SF–OBB Project. The authorization was issued based on information provided in CALTRANS' IHA request submitted in September 2001. CALTRANS was issued four subsequent IHAs for the SFOBB Project to date.
The existing east span connecting YBI and the Oakland shoreline was constructed in 1936. The east span is a double-deck structure 3,696 meters (12,127 feet) in length and approximately 18 meters (58 feet) wide, carrying five traffic lanes in east-and westbound directions. The east span is supported by 22 in-water bridge piers (Piers E2 through E23), as well as land-based bridge piers and bents on both YBI and Oakland. The existing east span can be divided into three major sections.
(1) Cantilever Superstructure—The Cantilever section is comprised of three major elements: two cantilever anchor arm elements that are 154.8 meters (508 feet) long and 156 meters (512 feet) long, respectively; and a 426.7-meter (1,400-foot) long main span over the navigation channel consisting of a suspended segment which is supported on either side by anchor arms. The superstructure of this segment includes the trusses, road deck and steel support towers.
(2) 504′ & 288′ Spans Superstructure—This segment of the bridge is comprised of five 153.6-meter (504-foot) long steel truss spans and fourteen 87.8-meter (288-foot) long steel truss spans. The vertical clearance beneath the 504-foot spans is approximately 50 meters (165 feet) above mean high water levels, while the vertical clearance beneath the 288-foot spans varies greatly as the structure descends towards the Oakland shoreline. The superstructure of this segment includes the trusses, road deck and steel and/or concrete support towers.
(3) Marine Foundations—The in-water or marine foundations vary in type. Piers E2 through E5 consist of concrete caissons founded on deep bedrock. Piers E6 through E23 consist of lightly reinforced concrete foundations that are supported by timber piles.
All in-water pile driving of both permanent and temporary piles for the construction of the new east span is complete. The only remaining in-water work with the potential to result in the incidental take of marine mammals will be the removal of temporary piles. Temporary piles may be cut off 0.46 meter (1.5 feet) below the mud line or completely removed. The removal of piles may employ the use of a vibratory pile driver/extractor.
East span dismantling activities with the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals may include: Dredging and dredged material disposal, vibratory and impact driving of temporary piles, and dismantling of marine foundations by mechanical means.
Due to shallow water depth near the Oakland shore, dredging may be required to create a barge access channel to dismantle the existing bridge. Dredging will also be required to remove piers from the existing bridge. It is anticipated that 145,785 cubic meters (190,680 cubic yards) of material would be dredged to create the barge access channel for dismantling the existing bridge.
This material may be disposed of at the San Francisco Deep Ocean disposal site, at an upland wetland reuse site, or at a landfill reuse site, as directed by the Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO). For removal of the existing piers, it is anticipated that 17,374 cubic meters (22,724 cubic yards) of material will be dredged. This material may be disposed of at the Alcatraz Island disposal site, or as directed by the DMMO.
CALTRANS anticipates that two temporary access trestles and in-water falsework may be required to dismantle the existing bridge. These temporary structures, to be designed by the contractor, may be required to facilitate support of the existing east span until it is completely removed and provide for construction access. Since the temporary structures will be contractor designed, their exact nature (size, type, number of piles, etc.) will not be known until the dismantling begins. However, CALTRANS has developed estimates as to the approximate size, location and number of piles needed for these temporary structures. The anticipated temporary structures are described below and the quantity and size of piles needed to support these structures are presented in Table 1.
Two trestles may be needed to facilitate construction access and allow for the off-haul of materials. One of the trestles would extend into the Bay from the YBI shoreline (YBI Access Trestle). The other trestle would extend into the Bay from the Oakland shoreline (Oakland Access Trestle).
YBI Access Trestle: It is anticipated that a small, approximately 650 square meters (7,000 square ft), H-pile supported trestle would be constructed on the southeast side of YBI. The YBI Access Trestle would primarily be used for the off-haul of materials during the dismantling of the cantilever superstructure. Installation of the YBI Access Trestle is anticipated as one of the first orders of work for the dismantling and would likely be constructed during summer or fall 2012.
Oakland Access Trestle: It is anticipated that an approximately 8,920 square meters (96,000 square ft) pipe pile-supported trestle will be constructed parallel to the southern side of the existing east span. The trestle would likely have fingers extending under the bridge, perpendicular to the main trestle to allow for access between the foundations. It is anticipated that the trestle would extend westward from the Oakland shoreline, potentially as far as Pier E9 of the existing east span. The trestle would be used for construction access during the dismantling of the superstructure and/or marine foundation removal. The Oakland Access Trestle may be constructed between 2014 and 2017, depending on construction schedules.
Temporary falsework supports would be necessary to ensure the stability of portions of the structure not yet removed. It is anticipated that marine pile-supported falsework would be needed to facilitate the removal of the superstructure.
It is conservatively estimated that a maximum of 2,540 temporary piles may be installed to support all temporary structures, including the two access trestles, and falsework needed to support the structural sections of the existing bridge until completely removed. These piles are expected to be 0.45 meter (18 inches) to 0.91 meter (36 inches) in diameter. When no longer needed, all temporary piles will be retrieved or cut off 0.46 meter (1.5 ft) below the mudline, per US Coast Guard (USCG) requirements.
All pipe piles will be installed with a vibratory hammer. The vibratory hammer will be used to drive the majority of the total pile lengths. The remainder of the pile may be impact-driven with the use of a marine pile driving energy attenuator (i.e., air bubble curtain system), or other equally effective sound attenuation method (e.g., dewatered cofferdam). A maximum of twenty piles may be impact-driven per day.
In the event a pipe pile is entirely installed with a vibratory hammer, it will still be subject to final “proofing” with an impact hammer. “Proofing” will be accomplished by using a limited number of blows with an impact hammer intended to test integrity and seating of the pile. A maximum of 10% of the piles installed completely with a vibratory hammer may be proofed with an impact hammer, without the use of a marine pile driving energy attenuator. Proofing of piles will be limited to a maximum of two piles per day, for less than 1 minute per pile, administering a maximum of twenty blows per pile.
All H-piles needed for the construction of the YBI Access Trestle will be installed with an impact hammer, without the use of a marine pile driving energy attenuator. Impact driving (with the exception of pile proofing) will be restricted to the period between June 1 and November 30 to avoid the peak migration period for salmonids and spawning adult green sturgeon. Vibratory driving and proofing of piles may be performed year round.
In addition to the temporary pipe piles and H-piles described above, sheet piles would be driven with a vibratory hammer to construct temporary cofferdams. A cofferdam is temporary enclosure, built within a body of water, usually composed of sheet piles welded together. The enclosures are generally water tight allowing them to be pumped dry so that construction may take place in a dry environment. The proposed cofferdams will be contractor-designed; therefore, the exact number and exact nature will be dependent on the contractor's means and methods. It is anticipated that a maximum of 22 cofferdams may be constructed around in-water marine foundations to facilitate the dismantling of the foundations. A typical sheet pile is approximately 0.3 meters (1 foot) long. To construct cofferdams completely surrounding each of the 22 marine foundations a maximum of 7,700 individual sheet piles may be needed. Due to the physical conditions of the project site (e.g., water depths) it is very unlikely that all or even a majority of the cofferdams will be fully dewatered. Some of the cofferdams may be fully dewatered while others may solely be used to isolate the work area; preventing water temporarily impacted by construction activities from mixing with the surrounding waters of the Bay.
To estimate underwater sound pressure levels for the proposed project, measurements from a number of underwater pile driving projects conducted under similar conditions were compiled (see Appendix B: Pile Driving Projects Considered in Development of Underwater Sound level Estimate in CALTRANS' IHA application). Based on this information, CALTRANS' hydroacoustic consultant has provided an estimate of underwater sound levels during vibratory driving, attenuated impact pile driving, and unattenuated proofing of both 0.61-m (24-in) and 0.91-m (36-in) diameter piles and during impact driving of H-piles to
Sound level estimates were not prepared for 0.46-m (18-in) diameter piles. Given that estimated sound levels for 0.61-m (24-in) diameter piles are lower than those estimated for the 0.91-m (36-in) diameter piles, it is assumed that sound levels from the vibratory and impact driving of 0.46-m (18-in) diameter piles will be lower than those for the 0.91-m (24-in) diameter piles.
Dismantling of concrete foundations would require reducing the reinforced concrete to pieces small enough to be hauled away, which could be done by mechanical means such as saw cutting, flame cutting, mechanical splitting, drilling, pulverizing and/or hydro-cutting. Dismantling of the marine foundations will be one of the last orders of work, and will not be undertaken until the superstructures and towers are removed.
Construction activities for the replacement of the east span of the SFOBB commenced in 2002 and are currently ongoing. The majority of the construction activities to build the new east span are now complete. The dismantling of the existing span is anticipated to take place immediately following the opening of the new east span to traffic, currently expected in the fall of 2013.
Dismantling of the existing east span may take up to five years to complete. Some preparatory construction activities related to the dismantling may take place as early as the summer of 2012, with completion of the dismantling targeted for 2017. The actual work schedule will be determined by the contractor.
The SF–OBB Project site is located in central San Francisco Bay, between YBI (which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City and County of San Francisco) and the City of Oakland, in Alameda County in California, as indicated in Figure 2–1 of CALTRANS LOA application.
General information on the marine mammal species found in California waters can be found in Caretta
The marine mammals most likely to be found in the SF–OBB area are the California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, and harbor porpoise. From December through May gray whales may also be present in the SF–OBB area. Information on California sea lion, harbor seal, and gray whale was provided in the November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64595),
CALTRANS and NMFS have determined that open-water pile driving and pile removal, as well as dredging and dismantling of concrete foundation of existing bridge by saw cutting, flame cutting, mechanical splitting, drilling, pulverizing and/or hydro-cutting, as outlined in the project description, has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and gray whales that may be swimming, foraging, or resting in the project vicinity while pile driving is being conducted. Pile driving and removal could potentially harass those few pinnipeds that are in the water close to the project site, whether their heads are above or below the surface.
Marine mammals exposed to high intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak
Measured source levels from impact pile driving can be as high as 214 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m. Although no marine mammals have been shown to experience TTS or PTS as a result of being exposed to pile driving activities, experiments on a bottlenose dolphin (
Noises from dismantling of marine foundations by mechanical means include, but is not limited to, saw cutting, mechanical splitting, drilling and pulverizing. Saw cutting and drilling constitute non-pulse noise, whereas mechanical splitting and pulverizing constitute impulse noise. Although the characteristics of these noises are not well studied, noises from saw cutting and drilling are expected to be similar to vibratory pile driving, and noises from mechanical splitting and pulverizing are expected to be similar to impact pile driving, but at lower intensity, due to the similar mechanisms in sound generating but at a lower power outputs. CALTRANS states that drilling and saw cutting is anticipated to produce underwater sound pressure levels (SPLs) in excess of 120 dB RMS, but is not anticipated to exceed the 180 dB re 1 μPa (RMS). The mechanical splitting and pulverizing of concrete with equipment such as a hammer hoe has the potential to generate high sound pressure levels in excess of 190 dB re 1 μPa (RMS) at 1 m.
However, in order for marine mammals to experience TTS or PTS, the animals have to be close enough to be exposed to high intensity noise levels for prolonged period of time. Based on the best scientific information available, these sound levels are far below the threshold that could cause TTS or the onset of PTS.
In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions. Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction.
Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize. Therefore, since noise generated from in-water pile driving during the SF–OBB construction activities is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by harbor porpoises. However, lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Unlike TS, masking can potentially impact the species at population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 3 times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic noise sources, such as those from vessels traffic, pile driving, dredging, and dismantling existing bridge by mechanic means, contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels, thus intensify masking.
Nevertheless, the sum of noise from the proposed SF–OBB construction activities is confined in an area of inland waters (San Francisco Bay) that is bounded by landmass, therefore, the noise generated is not expected to contribute to increased ocean ambient noise. Due to shallow water depth near the Oakland shore, dredging activities are mainly used to create a barge access channel to dismantle the existing bridge. Therefore, underwater sound propagation from dredging is expected to be poor due to the extremely shallowness of the area to be dredged.
Finally, exposure of marine mammals to certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, and reproduction. Some of these significant behavioral modifications include:
• Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cease feeding or social interaction.
For example, at the Guerreo Negro Lagoon in Baja California, Mexico, which is one of the important breeding grounds for Pacific gray whales, shipping and dredging associated with a salt works may have induced gray whales to abandon the area through most of the 1960s (Bryant
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall
The proposed project area is not believed to be a prime habitat for marine mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by marine mammals. Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic noise associated with SF–OBB construction activities are expected to affect only a small number of marine mammals on an infrequent basis.
Currently NMFS uses 160 dB re 1 μPa (RMS) at received level for impulse noises (such as impact pile driving, mechanic splitting and pulverizing) as the onset of marine mammal behavioral harassment, and 120 dB re 1 μPa (RMS) for non-impulse noises (vibratory pile driving, saw cutting, drilling, and dredging).
As far as airborne noise is concerned, based on airborne noise levels measured and on-site monitoring conducted during 2004 under a previous IHA, noise levels from the East Span project did not result in the harassment of harbor seals hauled out on Yerba Buena Island (YBI). Also, noise levels from the East Span project are not expected to result in harassment of the sea lions hauled out at Pier 39 as airborne and waterborne sound pressure levels (SPLs) would attenuate to levels below where harassment would be expected by the time they reach that haul-out site, 5.7 km (3.5 miles) from the project site. Therefore, no pinniped hauled out would be affected as a result of the proposed pile-driving. A detailed description of the acoustic
Short-term impacts to habitat may include minimal disturbance of the sediment where individual bridge piers are constructed. Long-term impacts to marine mammal habitat will be limited to the footprint of the piles and the obstruction they will create following installation. However, this impact is not considered significant as the marine mammals can easily swim around the piles of the new bridge, as they currently swim around the existing bridge piers.
For reasons provided in greater detail in NMFS' November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64595)
Marine mammal take estimates are based on marine mammal monitoring reports and marine mammal observations made during pile driving activities associated with the SF–OBB construction work authorized under prior IHAs. For pile driving activities conducted in 2006, 5 harbor seals and no other marine mammals were detected within the isopleths of 160 dB (rms) re 1 µPa during impact pile driving where air bubble curtains were deployed for mitigation measures (radius of zone of influence (ZOI) at 500 m) (CALTRANS 2007). For pile driving activities conducted in the 2008 and 2009 seasons, CALTRANS monitored a much larger ZOI of 120 dB (rms) re 1 µPa as a result of vibratory pile driving. A total of 11 harbor seals and 1 California sea lion were observed entering the 120 dB (rms) re 1 µPa ZOI (CALTRANS). However, despite the ZOI being monitored extended to 1,900 m for the 120 dB isopleths, CALTRANS did not specify which pile driving activities conducted in 2008 and 2009 used an impact hammer and which ones used a vibratory hammer. Therefore, at least some of these animals were not exposed to received level above 160 dB (rms) re µPa, and thus should not be considered as “taken” under the MMPA. No harbor porpoise or gray whale was observed during CALTRANS' pile driving activities since 2006 (CALTRANS 2007; 2010).
Based on these results, and accounting for a certain level of uncertainty regarding the next phase of construction (which would include dismantling of the existing bridge by mechanical means), NMFS proposes that at maximum 50 harbor seals, 10 California sea lions, 10 harbor porpoises, and 5 gray whales could be exposed to noise levels that could cause Level B harassment as a result of the CALTRAN' SF–OBB construction activities.
As mentioned above, marine mammal monitoring during CALTRANS' pile driving activities and weekly marine mammal observation memorandums (CALTRANS 2007; 2010) indicate that only a small number of harbor seals (a total of 16 individuals since 2006) and 1 California sea lion (a total of 1 individual in 2009) were observed within ZOIs that could result in behavioral harassment. However, the reports state that none of the animals were observed as been startled by the exposure, which could be an indication that these animals were habituated to human activities in San Francisco Bay. In addition, no harbor porpoise or gray whales were observed during pile driving activities associated to CALTRANS' SF–OBB construction work.
CALTRANS worked with NMFS and proposes the following mitigation measures for its SF–OBB construction activities to reduce adverse impacts to marine mammals to the lowest extent practicable if in-water pile driving would be conducted.
To minimize potential impacts to marine mammals, CALTRANS states that it will limit both the size of piles and duration of impact pile driving, to the extent feasible. Larger piles are expected to generate higher sound pressure levels than smaller piles. Limiting the size of piles to 0.91 meter (36 inches) in diameter or smaller will minimize potential noise impacts.
All pipe piles will be initially installed with a vibratory hammer. The vibratory hammer will be used to drive the majority of the total pile lengths. In the event a pipe pile is entirely installed with a vibratory hammer, it will still be subject to final “proofing” with an impact hammer. A maximum of 10% of the piles installed completely with a vibratory hammer may be proofed with an impact hammer, without the use of a marine pile driving energy attenuator. Proofing of piles will be limited to a maximum of two piles per day, for less than 1 minute per pile, administering a maximum of twenty blows per pile. While both vibratory and impact pile driving have the potential to affect marine mammals, impact driving is expected to generate higher sound pressure levels. Requiring the use of the vibratory hammer will reduce the duration of impact driving and potential exposure to higher sound pressure levels.
Use of a marine pile driving energy attenuator (i.e., air bubble curtain system), or other equally effective sound attenuation method (e.g., dewatered cofferdam) will be required during impact driving of all pipe piles, with the exception of pile proofing.
During prior in-water permanent and some temporary pile driving, a preliminary 500-meter (1,640-foot) radius exclusion zone was established prior to the commencement of pile driving. Once pile driving commenced, acoustical monitoring data was used to determine the radii at which underwater sound pressure levels equaled or exceeded 180 dB re 1 µPa (RMS) for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 µPa (RMS) for pinnipeds.
Based on hydroacoustic sound level measured during previous pile driving events, it is unlikely that sound pressure levels from either vibratory or impact driving of pipe piles will equal or exceed 180 or 190 dB re 1 µPa (RMS) beyond 10 meters (33 feet) from the piles. Therefore, CALTRANS will not establish or monitor an exclusion zone during vibratory or impact driving of pipe piles.
CALTRANS will perform hydroacoustic monitoring during initial impact pile driving events for each of the temporary structures identified in Table 1 to verify estimated underwater sound pressure levels. Should it be determined through monitoring that sound levels from the impact driving of pipe piles have the potential to exceed
Only the impact driving of H-piles and the proofing of pipe piles is expected to equal or exceed the 180 dB re 1 µPa (RMS) to a distance of 25 to 35 meters (82 to 115 feet) depending on the pile type and size. However, it is not practical to establish and monitor an exclusion zone during the driving of H-pile or proofing of pipe piles.
The proofing of a pipe pile would require less than 1 minute of impact driving. The logistics of scheduling and mobilizing a monitoring team for activities that will last less than one minute is not practical. In addition, considering that it is extremely unlikely that a cetacean would be within 25 to 35 meters (82 to 115 feet) of an H-pile during impact driving or pipe pile during proofing, CALTRANS does not intend to establish an exclusion zone or perform monitoring for cetaceans during these activities. Neither the driving of H-piles or the proofing of pipe piles is expected to equal or exceed the 190 dB re 1 µPa (RMS) beyond 10 meters (33 feet) from the pile. Therefore, a pinniped exclusion zone would not be necessary.
Due to the uncertainty associated with potential sound levels from mechanical means of dismantling marine foundations, CALTRANS will establish a preliminary 500-meter radius exclusion zone around each foundation, prior to splitting or pulverizing concrete via mechanical means. Once removal of concrete foundations commences, acoustical monitoring data will be used to determine the radii at which underwater sound pressure levels equal or exceed 180 dB re 1 µPa (RMS) for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 µPa (RMS) for pinnipeds. The radii of the exclusion zones will then be adjusted to correspond with noise thresholds.
NMFS-approved marine mammal monitors located on construction barges, trestles, bridge piers, YBI and/or Treasure Island will survey the exclusion zones to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zone before activities begin. If marine mammals are found within the exclusion zone, work will be delayed until the monitors are confident the animal has moved out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor will be instructed to wait until enough time has elapsed without a sighting (at least 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans) to assume the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.
If marine mammals enter the safety zone after the activities have commenced, the operation will continue unabated and marine mammal observers will monitor and record their numbers and behavior. Should the activities stop for a period of 30 minutes or more, then the restart of the activity will be treated in the same manner as described above.
Should it be determined through acoustic monitoring that sound levels from the mechanical splitting and pulverizing of concrete foundations will not have the potential to equal or exceed 180 or 190 dB re 1 µPa (RMS), monitoring of the exclusion zones will be discontinued.
It should be recognized that although marine mammals will be protected from Level A harassment (
In addition, CALTRANS will ensure construction equipment complies with noise standards of the US Environmental Protection Agency and that all equipment has noise control devices not less effective than those provided on the original equipment.
CALTRANS and NMFS worked together and proposed the following monitoring measures for the SF–OBB construction activities.
Exclusion zone monitoring will be conducted during the dismantling of marine foundations by mechanical means having the potential to generate sound levels in excess of 180 dB re 1 μPa (RMS). Monitoring of the pinniped and cetacean exclusion zones will be conducted by a minimum of three qualified NMFS-approved observers. The observers will begin monitoring at least 30 minutes prior to startup of the activity and for at least 30 minutes following the activity. Observers will likely conduct the monitoring from construction barges, trestles, bridge piers, YBI and/or Treasure Island depending on the location of the activity. As discussed above in the proposed mitigation section, the activity will not begin until the exclusion zone is clear of marine mammals.
Observations will be made using high-quality binoculars (
Due to the extremely small size of the exclusion zone (zones where SPL reaches 180 and 190 dB) as indicated in Table 2, there is no need to conduct monitoring for these zones during pile driving activities. Should it be determined through hydroacoustic monitoring that sound levels from pile driving have the potential to substantively exceed 180 or 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms), corresponding exclusion zones will be established and monitored.
To document the number of marine mammals exposed to impulse sounds greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), CALTRANS will monitor marine mammals during at least 20% of attenuated impact driving of pipe piles and 100% of unattenuated impact driving of H-piles. This monitoring will be conducted by a minimum of two qualified NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs). The PSOs will begin monitoring at least 30 minutes prior to startup of the activity and for at least 30 minutes following the activity. PSOs will likely conduct the monitoring from construction barges, trestles, bridge piers, YBI and/or Treasure Island
The purpose of the underwater sound monitoring during dismantling of concrete foundations via mechanical means is to establish the exclusion zones of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for pinnipeds. Monitoring will occur during the initial use of concrete dismantling equipment with the potential to generate sound pressure levels in excess of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Monitoring will likely be conducted from construction barges and/or boats. Measurements will be taken at various distances as needed to determine the distance to the 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) contours.
The purpose of underwater sound monitoring during impact pile driving will be to verify sound level estimates and confirm that sound levels do not equal or exceed 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms).
CALTRANS will notify NMFS prior to the initiation of the pile driving and dismantling activities for the removal of the existing east span. NMFS will be informed of the initial sound pressure level measurements for both pile driving and foundation dismantling activities, including sound level measurements taken at the 500-meter (1,640-ft) contour and the final exclusion zone radii established for marine foundation dismantling activities.
Monitoring reports will be posted on the SFOBB Project's biological mitigation Web site (
Pursuant to NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA, an applicant is required to estimate the number of animals that will be “taken” by the specified activities (i.e., takes by harassment only, or takes by harassment, injury, and/or death). This estimate informs the analysis that NMFS must perform to determine whether the activity will have a “negligible impact” on the species or stock. Level B (behavioral) harassment occurs at the level of the individual(s) and does not assume any resulting population-level consequences, though there are known avenues through which behavioral disturbance of individuals can result in population-level effects. A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination.
In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
The CALTRANS' specified activities have been described based on best estimates of the planned SF–OBB construction project within the proposed project area. Some of the noises that would be generated as a result of the proposed bridge construction and dismantling project, such as impact pile driving, are high intensity. However, the in-water pile driving for the piles would use small hammers and/or vibratory pile driving methods, coupled with noise attenuation mechanism such as air bubble curtains for impact pile driving, therefore the resulting exclusion zones for potential TS are expected to be extremely small (< 35 m) from the hammer. In addition, the source levels from vibratory pile driving are expected to be below the TS onset threshold. Therefore, NMFS does not expect that any animals would receive Level A (including injury) harassment or Level B harassment in the form of TTS from being exposed to in-water pile driving associated with SF–OBB construction project.
Based on marine mammal monitoring reports under previous IHAs, only 16 harbor seals and 1 California sea lion were observed within the 120 dB (in 2008 and 2009) or 160 dB (in 2006) ZOIs during in-water pile driving since 2006. NMFS estimates that up to 50 harbor seals, 10 California sea lions, 10 harbor porpoises, and 5 gray whales could be exposed to received levels above 120 dB (rms) during vibratory pile driving or 160 dB (rms) during impact pile driving for the next season of construction activities due to the large numbers of piles to be driven and the extended zones of influence from vibratory pile driving. These are small numbers, representing 0.15% of the California stock of harbor seal population (estimated at 34,233; Carretta
Animals exposed to construction noise associated with the SF–OBB construction work would be limited to Level B behavioral harassment only, i.e., the exposure of received levels for impulse noise between 160 and 180 dB (rms) re 1 μPa (from impact pile driving) and for non-impulse noise between 120 and 180 dB (rms) re 1 μPa (from vibratory pile driving). In addition, the potential behavioral responses from exposed animals are expected to be localized and short in duration.
These low intensity, localized, and short-term noise exposures (
For the reasons discussed in this document, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of in-water pile driving associated with construction of the SF–OBB would result, at worst, in the Level B harassment of small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and potentially gray whales that inhabit or visit SFB in general and the vicinity of the SF–OBB
In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned previously in this document.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action.
NMFS' prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the take of marine mammals incidental to construction of the East Span of the SF–OBB and made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on November 4, 2003. Due to the modification of part of the construction project and the mitigation measures, NMFS reviewed additional information from CALTRANS regarding empirical measurements of pile driving noises for the smaller temporary piles without an air bubble curtain system and the use of vibratory pile driving. NMFS prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) and analyzed the potential impacts to marine mammals that would result from the modification of the action. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on August 5, 2009. A copy of the SEA and FONSI is available upon request (see
NMFS has determined that issuance of the IHA will have no effect on listed marine mammals, as none are known to occur in the action area.
NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to CALTRANS for the potential harassment of small numbers of harbor seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, and gray whales incidental to construction of a replacement bridge for the East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in California, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed activity would result in the harassment of only small numbers of harbor seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, and possibly gray whales and will have no more than a negligible impact on these marine mammal stocks.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issues this Notice to announce requirements for the State and Local Implementation Grant Program authorized by section 6302 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act). The Notice describes the programmatic requirements under which NTIA will award grants to assist state, local, and tribal governments with planning for a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network.
The programmatic requirements for the State and Local Implementation Grant Program become effective August 21, 2012.
The programmatic requirements for the State and Local Implementation Grant Program will be posted to the NTIA Web site at
Laura M. Pettus, Program Specialist, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4812, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5802. Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482–7002.
On February 22, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act).
The Act establishes the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within NTIA and authorizes it to take all actions necessary to ensure the design, construction, and operation of a nationwide public safety broadband network (PSBN), based on a single, national network architecture.
Additionally, the Act charges NTIA with establishing a grant program to assist state, regional, tribal, and local jurisdictions with identifying, planning, and implementing the most efficient and effective means to use and integrate the infrastructure, equipment, and other architecture associated with the nationwide PSBN to satisfy the wireless broadband and data services needs of their jurisdictions.
To implement the new program, NTIA must establish requirements, in
On May 16, 2012, NTIA issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public comment on various issues related to the development of the State and Local Implementation Grant Program.
NTIA received approximately 70 comments from a wide range of stakeholders, including states, local and tribal governments, federal and state agencies, trade associations, private companies, consultants, and individuals. The majority of the comments discuss each of the issues identified in the RFI, and NTIA relied on the comments for guidance to frame the requirements of the State and Local Implementation Grant Program, particularly to develop the overarching direction of the program as it relates to the collection of data and the consultation process with FirstNet.
In some cases, the comments address matters not specifically covered in the RFI, such as the need for a web-based repository of information, the need for clarification on the applicability of vendor conflict of interest rules, the importance of developing the PSBN business models, and the necessary considerations for network sustainability.
Overwhelmingly, the commenters agree that FirstNet must establish a standardized process before the states engage in any data collection activities.
Many commenters believe that preparing to consult effectively with FirstNet will require states to dedicate their already limited resources, specifically funds and personnel, to this task.
NTIA agrees that FirstNet is in the best position to develop standards for the collection of data on assets and infrastructure that might be used or incorporated into the PSBN.
Based in large part on this feedback, and in keeping with the intent of the Act, NTIA believes that, given the funds available and the need for FirstNet to make initial decisions on the data collection process, it can make the most efficient and effective use of grant dollars by focusing the State and Local Implementation Grant Program on planning and development activities in preparation for consultations with FirstNet.
Consistent with the statutory framework, NTIA plans to design the State and Local Implementation Grant Program as a formula-based, matching grant program to assist states, in collaboration with regional, tribal, and local jurisdictions, with activities related to planning for the establishment of a nationwide public safety broadband network.
NTIA plans to distribute the funding available under this grant program in two phases, and will consider the input solicited through the RFI to develop a methodology to distribute the available funds.
The 56 states and territories are eligible for grants under the State and Local Implementation Grant Program. The Act directs NTIA to make grants to states; thus, each state and territory choosing to apply for a grant should
NTIA will specify in the FFO the exact contents of the application package that applicants must submit during the application window. There are several items, however, that NTIA will likely require, and applicants may prepare to address them in advance of the FFO's publication. First, the Act directs each state to certify in its application for grant funds that the state has designated a single officer or governmental body to serve as the coordinator of the grant funds.
Second, in response to concerns expressed by some commenters and consistent with the intent of the statute, NTIA will likely ask applicants to describe how they plan to collect input from local and tribal jurisdictions to ensure that their public safety needs are adequately represented during the consultation process with FirstNet and in the coordination of the grant funds.
Third, NTIA requested comment on how the existing public safety governance and planning authorities in each state might be incorporated into the consultations with FirstNet about the PSBN.
The State and Local Implementation Grant Program will support activities related to planning for the establishment of the nationwide PSBN. NTIA received detailed input from the majority of commenters regarding the types of activities that it should allow under the grant program to accomplish this objective.
NTIA anticipates structuring the State and Local Implementation Grant Program into two phases of funding for planning activities. The first phase will focus on initial planning and consultation activities, including strategy and timeline development, meetings, governance planning, and outreach and education efforts. The second phase will not begin until FirstNet has consulted with the state-designated contact about the matters listed in the Act, including defining coverage needs, user requirements, and network hardening and resiliency requirements.
NTIA will detail the full scope of allowable activities under the grant program in the FFO; however, NTIA will likely require recipients to show that they have accomplished the following activities by the end of the grant period of performance: (1) Established a governance structure, or expanded existing structures, to consult with FirstNet; (2) developed procedures to ensure local and tribal representation and participation in the consultation process with FirstNet; (3) created a process for education and outreach, through program development or through other efforts, among local and tribal officials, public safety users, and other stakeholders about the nationwide public safety broadband network; (4) identified potential public safety users of the public safety broadband network; (5) developed standard MOUs to facilitate the use of existing infrastructure, or identified the legal barriers to creating standard MOUs and described potential remedies; and (6) developed staffing plans that include local and tribal representation to participate in the public safety governance structure and to prepare for data collection activities in consultation with FirstNet. NTIA also will consider having grant recipients prepare a comprehensive plan, similar in concept to their existing Statewide Interoperability Communications Plans (SICPs), describing the public safety needs that they expect FirstNet to address in its design of the nationwide PSBN, as well as how they intend to satisfy each of the elements enumerated above, including milestones that demonstrate their progress.
If sufficient funds are available, NTIA may permit grant recipients that have satisfactorily completed the milestones associated with these initial planning requirements to use funds for supplemental activities related to preparing for any FirstNet data collections, such as determining staffing levels to dedicate to these tasks, designating a state point of contact for data collection, where appropriate, and evaluating the feasibility of using public/private partnerships. At present, NTIA does not expect to include the compiling of asset and infrastructure inventories as an allowable activity until FirstNet has developed a standardized process to govern data collection activities.
Grantees may only use funds awarded under the State and Local Implementation Grant Program to pay eligible costs. Eligible costs are consistent with the cost principles identified in the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars
Based on input received from multiple commenters, eligible costs under the planning grant program will likely include the following categories of expenses:
1. Hiring staff and consultants required for the planning process (such as project managers, program directors, engineers, grant administrators, financial analysts, accountants, and attorneys);
2. Holding planning meetings with state agencies, local and tribal stakeholders, and regional partners;
3. Covering travel costs for state, local, and tribal representatives to attend planning meetings (such as preparing for FirstNet consultations and attending state, regional, and national meetings that address public safety broadband issues);
4. Developing, modifying, or enhancing state plans and governance structures, including efforts to adapt existing public safety governance authorities, such as the Statewide Interoperability Coordinators (SWIC), Statewide Interoperability Executive Committees (SIEC), and Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies (SIGB), to include public safety broadband stakeholders and expertise, and determining the role of the state Chief Information Officers (CIO), Chief Technology Officers (CTO), or Chief Budget Officers (CBO);
5. Conducting communications, education, and outreach activities with state, local, tribal, and regional stakeholders;
6. Developing standardized MOUs and other types of agreements to facilitate access to and use of existing infrastructure;
7. Identifying potential public safety users for the public safety broadband network;
8. Administrative services and supplies necessary to prepare for and manage the grant program;
9. Legal services related to the planning process; and
10. Training costs related to the planning process.
NTIA does not envision allowing funds awarded under the State and Local Implementation Grant Program to be used for activities related to site preparation, broadband deployment, installation, construction, or the acquisition of equipment used to provide wireless broadband services, including LTE-related activities.
The Act provides that the State and Local Implementation Grant Program shall include requirements to prioritize grants for activities that ensure coverage in rural as well as urban areas.
In designing the formula that it will use to allocate funds under the grant program, NTIA intends to avoid a solely population-based approach and will consider additional factors that affect rural coverage. Additionally, NTIA agrees that the states will need flexibility in determining the most effective means by which FirstNet can provide adequate rural coverage. While the FFO will describe in detail the exact contents of the application package, NTIA anticipates having the states address how they will prioritize their grant activities to ensure coverage in rural areas, including providing specific plans and metrics to demonstrate how they will achieve these requirements.
As previously discussed, the Act directs NTIA to consult with FirstNet to establish the requirements of the State and Local Implementation Grant Program not later than 6 months after the date of the Act's enactment, or by August 22, 2012. The Act also required that FirstNet be established no later than August 20, 2012. The Act's framework, which essentially placed the creation of FirstNet and the development of the grant program requirements on parallel tracks, proved challenging for NTIA as it attempted to fulfill the statutory mandate to consult with FirstNet in establishing the State and Local Implementation Grant Program. As noted, NTIA has only started to consult with the newly-formed FirstNet Board on the grant program requirements outlined in this Notice. NTIA expects these consultations to proceed over the next few months as NTIA continues to prepare the FFO in which the State and Local Implementation Grant Program requirements will be described more fully.
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.
Friday, September 14, 2012 from 10:00 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 agenda for this meeting includes: (a) Presentations on the distinct risk factors, needs and pathways to success for girls and young women “at the margins” of society; (b) discussions of potential areas where agency coordination might improve delivery of services and outcomes for girls; and (c) agency updates and announcements.
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.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
TexMex Energy, LLC (TexMex) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before September 20, 2012.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be addressed to: Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202–586–5260, or by email to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On February 22, 2007 the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA–294–A, which authorized TexMex to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expired on February 22, 2012. On July 23, 2012, TexMex filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA–294–A for an additional five-year term.
It is reasonable to presume that all of the electric energy that TexMex proposes to export to Mexico will be surplus energy purchased from electric utilities, Federal power marketing agencies, and other entities within the United States. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by TexMex have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments on the TexMex application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA–294–B. An additional copy is to be provided directly to Guillermo Gonzalez G., c/o Protama S.A. de C.V., Tonala 44, Col. Roma, Mexico D.F., Mexico 06700 and Douglas F. John and Matthew T. Rick, John & Hengerer, 1730 Rhode Island Ave. NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
RBC Energy Services LP (RBC Energy) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before September 20, 2012.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be addressed to: Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202–586–5260, or by email to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On September 26, 2007, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA–328 authorizing RBC Energy to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term. The current export authority in Order No EA–328 will expire on September 26, 2012. On July 26, 2012, RBC Energy filed an application with DOE for renewal of that authority for an additional five-year term.
In its application, RBC Energy states that neither it nor its affiliates “owns, operates or controls any electric power transmission or distribution facilities in the United States.” RBC Energy states and it is reasonable to presume, that the electric power proposed to be exported to Canada will be purchased from electric utilities and federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements and will be surplus to the system needs of the entities selling the power to RBC Energy. The application also indicates that RBC Energy is a power marketer authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to sell energy, capacity, and specified ancillary services at market-based rates.
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by RBC Energy have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the FERC Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.
Comments on the RBC Energy application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. 328–A. An additional copy is to be provided directly to Matthew S. Arnold, Senior Counsel, Royal Bank of Canada, 200 Bay Street, 14th Floor, North Tower, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2J5 and with
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, September 6, 2012, 6 p.m.
Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Joel Bradburne, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897–3822,
• Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda
• Approval of July Minutes
• Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments
• Federal Coordinator's Comments
• Liaisons' Comments
• Presentations
• Administrative Issues
• Subcommittee Updates
• Public Comments
• Final Comments from the Board
• Adjourn
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Notice of open meeting (Webinar).
This notice announces an open meeting (Webinar) of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, 86 Stat. 770 requires that agencies publish notice of meetings in the
Wednesday, September 5, 2012; 12 p.m.–2 p.m. To be provided the Webinar's registration information, please email:
email to:
• Public Comment (10 minutes)
• Discussion of Hydrogen Production Expert Panel report
• Consultation in establishing the criteria for the H-Prize competition, as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, in Sec. 654.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting.
The Department of Energy (DOE) Wind and Water Power Program (WWPP) is planning a workshop to exchange information on hydropower's ability to integrate variable renewables into our nation's grid. Some renewable energy resources, such as wind and solar, can stress power systems as their electricity generation varies with fluctuations in their renewable “fuel” (i.e. wind speed and sunlight availability). Development of these resources is essential for meeting the President's goal of producing 80% of U.S. electricity from clean energy sources by 2035, but will require grid integration solutions. DOE is seeking individual technical advice with regard to the use of existing hydropower resources and advanced pumped storage technologies for integrating variable renewables.
DOE will hold a workshop on Tuesday, September 18, 2012, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and on Wednesday, September 19, 2012, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Portland, OR. RSVP is required by Tuesday, September 4, 2012.
The workshop will be held at the Mark Spencer Hotel located at 409 SW. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97205.
Mr. Hoyt Battey, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586–0143. Email:
Hydropower provides a substantial portion of the existing power grid's flexibility and does so without emitting greenhouse emissions. However, the demands on the hydropower fleet's flexibility are growing due to increasing installation of renewables like wind and solar that produce variable power. Simultaneously, the capability to provide this flexibility is diminishing as the hydropower fleet loses efficiency as it ages, and competing water uses such as irrigation and domestic supply take priority over generation capabilities. New advanced pumped storage technologies could add the needed flexibility to integrate variable renewables, but U.S. development of pumped storage has been stalled for the last two decades.
Exchanging information concerning individual experience by industry experts through the DOE sponsored 2010 Pumped Storage Summit was informational and helped DOE to identify a set of key issues preventing the deployment of advanced pumped storage hydropower technologies. DOE was able to utilize the key information obtained at that meeting to carefully target research and development funding towards high-impact projects, such as benefits demonstration and pre-construction support.
DOE is planning a workshop for the exchange of information on hydropower's ability to integrate variable renewables into our nation's grid. Participants at the September workshop should limit information and comments to those based on personal experience, individual advice, information, or facts regarding this topic. It is not the object of this session to obtain any group position or consensus. Rather, this meeting is an opportunity for participants to gain an individual understanding of the cited knowledge, research, and technology needs. To most effectively use the limited time, please refrain from passing judgment on another participant's recommendations or advice, and instead, concentrate on your individual experiences.
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.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears 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.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
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. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k.
The existing Monadnock Hydroelectric Project consists of four developments, three of which have generating facilities, with a combined installed capacity of 1,889 kilowatts (kW). The project produces an average annual generation of 6,100 megawatt-hours. All power generated by the Monadnock Project is used by Monadnock Paper Mill, Inc.'s (MPM) paper production facility. The four developments, from upstream to downstream, are described below.
The existing Powder Mill Development is located at river mile 46.08 of the Contoocook River and consists of: (1) A 366-foot-long, 18.6-foot-high dam consisting of a gated 228-foot-long concrete gravity spillway with a crest elevation of 675.44 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) and 2-foot-high seasonal flashboards, an approximately 91-foot-long earth embankment with a concrete core wall on the north side of the spillway, and an approximately 47-foot-long earth embankment with a concrete core wall on the south side of the spillway; (2) a 4-foot-wide sluiceway on the north side of the spillway; (3) a 35-foot-long, 15-foot-wide regulating gatehouse structure with a 4-foot-diameter outlet pipe on the south side of the spillway; (4) a 435-acre impoundment with a storage capacity of 1,940 acre-feet and a normal maximum elevation of 677.44 feet NGVD; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
The existing Monadnock Development is located 4,200 feet downstream of Powder Mill Dam and consists of: (1) An approximately 515-foot-long, 22-foot-high dam consisting of a 165-foot-long concrete spillway with a crest elevation of 663.8 feet NGVD and 2-foot-high seasonal flashboards, a 75-foot-long earth embankment with a concrete core wall on the west side of the spillway, a 50-foot-long concrete non-overflow section, a 25-foot-long earth embankment with a concrete core wall, and a 200-foot-long earthen embankment on the east side of the spillway; (2) a 5-acre impoundment with a storage capacity of 240 acre-feet and a normal maximum elevation of 665.8 feet NGVD; (3) a 75-foot-long, 20-foot-wide powerhouse on the west side of the spillway containing two turbine-generating units for a total installed capacity of 423 kW; (4) two 20 to 25-foot-long, 2.3-kV generator leads; (5) a 100-foot-long tailrace; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
The existing Pierce Development is located 900 feet downstream of the Monadnock Dam and consists of: (1) The 420-foot-long, 28-foot-high dam consisting of a 290-foot-long concrete spillway with a crest elevation of 651.4 feet NGVD and 2-foot-high seasonal flashboards; (2) a 7-acre impoundment with a storage capacity of 51-acre-feet and a normal maximum elevation of 653.4 feet NGVD; (3) a 25-foot-long, 35-foot-wide powerhouse on the east side of the spillway containing two turbine-generating units for a total installed capacity of 770 kW; (4) two 15 to 25-foot-long, 2.3-kV generator leads; (5) a 600-foot-long tailrace; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
The existing Paper Mill Development is located 1,140 feet downstream of the Pierce Dam and consists of: (1) The 280-foot-long, 19-foot-high dam consisting of a 142-foot-long concrete gravity spillway with a crest elevation of 625.6 feet NGVD and 2-foot-high seasonal flashboards; (2) a 5-acre impoundment with a storage capacity of 25-acre-feet and a normal maximum elevation of 627.6 feet NGVD; (3) a 300-foot-long power canal and headgate structure leading to a forebay; (4) an intake structure and a 10-foot-diameter, 200-foot-long steel penstock; (5) a generating room located on the lower level of MPM's paper mill facility containing a 746-kW turbine generating unit; (6) a 150-foot-long, 2.3-kV generator lead; (7) a 800-foot-long tailrace; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
The project also consists of a 2,190-foot-long, 2.3-kV overhead transmission line interconnecting the generator leads to a 200-foot-long, 23-kV supply bus at MPM's paper mill facility.
The Powder Mill Development operates in a seasonal store and release mode to meet downstream demand for hydroelectric generation at MPM's paper mill facility and instream flow requirements, while the Monadnock, Pierce, and Paper Mill developments operate in a run-of-river mode. The existing license requires an instantaneous minimum flow of 13 cubic feet per second (cfs) (or inflow, whichever is less), in the Powder Mill, Monadnock, and Pierce tailraces; and an instantaneous minimum flow of 70 cfs (or the inflow, whichever is less), in the Paper Mill tailrace. MPM proposes to continue operating the project according to the existing minimum flow requirements and restrict the impoundment level at the Powder Mill Development to a maximum drawdown of 3 feet (between elevations 675.44 and 672.44 feet NGVD).
l.
m. You may also register online at
n.
The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters, 720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Jason Strong, Office of Energy Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502–6124 or
Take notice that on August 10, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2), Shell Pipeline Company LP submitted a petition requesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issue a declaratory order approving the overall rate structure and pro-rationing rules and other tariff terms and conditions of service for a new pipeline from St. James LA to Houston TX (Westward HO project) to transport crude petroleum from deepwater Gulf of Mexico wells to Houston and Nederland, Texas area refineries and markets.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on August 9, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2), Kinder Morgan Cochin LLC submitted a petition requesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issue a declaratory order approving the overall rate structure and pro-rationing rules and other tariff terms and conditions of service for reversal and expansion of its Cochin pipeline (Cochin Reversal Project) to bring light condensate diluent from Kankakee, IL to Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Southwestern Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed extension.
The current Sam Rayburn Dam Project rate was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on March 30, 2009, Docket No. EF09–4021–000. These rates became effective for the period January 1, 2009, through September 30, 2012. The Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern), has prepared Current and Revised 2012 Power Repayment Studies which show the need for an increase in annual revenues of $193,896 (4.9 percent) to meet cost recovery criteria. In accordance with Southwestern's isolated project rate adjustment threshold, signed September 8, 2003, the Administrator, Southwestern, may determine, on a case by case basis, that for a revenue decrease or increase in the magnitude of five percent or less, deferral of a formal rate filing is in the best interest of the Government. The Deputy Secretary of Energy has the authority to extend rates, previously confirmed and approved by FERC, on an interim basis, pursuant to title 10, part 903, subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 903), sections 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3) . In accordance with these authorities, Southwestern proposes to defer the rate adjustment and proposes that the current rates be extended for a one-year period effective through September 30, 2013.
The comment period for the proposed extension ends on September 20, 2012.
Mr. James K. McDonald, Assistant Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, (918) 595–6690,
Originally established by Secretarial Order No. 1865 dated August 31, 1943, Southwestern is an agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, created by the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95–91, dated August 4, 1977. Guidelines for preparation of power repayment studies are included in DOE Order No. RA 6120.2 entitled Power Marketing Administration Financial Reporting. Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions of the Power Marketing Administrations are found at title 10, part 903, subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 903). Procedures for the confirmation and approval of rates for the Federal Power Marketing Administrations are found at title 18, part 300, subpart L of the Code of Federal Regulations (18 CFR part 300).
Southwestern markets power from 24 multi-purpose reservoir projects with hydroelectric power facilities constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). These projects are located in the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Southwestern's marketing area includes these States plus Kansas and Louisiana. The costs associated with the hydropower facilities of 22 of the 24 projects are repaid via revenues received under the Integrated System rates, as are those of Southwestern's transmission facilities, which consist of 1,380 miles of high-voltage transmission lines, 25 substations, and 46 microwave and VHF radio sites. Costs associated
Following Department of Energy guidelines, Southwestern prepared a 2012 Current Power Repayment Study using the existing Sam Rayburn Dam Project rate schedule. The PRS shows the cumulative amortization through FY 2011 at $24,993,504 on a total investment of $30,254,778. The FY 2012 Revised Power Repayment Study indicates the need for an increase in annual revenues of $193,896, or 4.9 percent, to meet repayment criteria.
Southwestern proposes to defer the indicated rate adjustment because it falls within Southwestern's plus-or-minus five percent isolated project rate adjustment threshold and extend the current rate through September 30, 2013. The threshold was developed to add efficiency to the process of maintaining adequate rates and is consistent with cost recovery criteria within DOE Order Number RA 6120.2 regarding rate adjustment plans. The extension is required because the current rate expires September 30, 2012. Southwestern proposes to defer this rate adjustment of 4.9 percent, or $193,896 per year in accordance with Southwestern's isolated project rate adjustment threshold, extend the current rate through September 30, 2013, and reevaluate the ability of the existing rate to provide sufficient revenues to satisfy costs projected in the FY 2013 Power Repayment Studies.
On March 30, 2009, the current rate schedule for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project was confirmed and approved by the FERC on a final basis for a period that ends September 30, 2012. In accordance with title 10, part 903, subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 903) sections 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3), the Deputy Secretary may extend existing rates on an interim basis beyond the period specified by the FERC. As a result of the benefits obtained by a rate adjustment deferral (reduced Federal expense and rate stability) and the Deputy Secretary's authority to extend a previously approved rate, Southwestern's Administrator is proposing to extend the current Sam Rayburn Dam Project rate schedule. The schedule is to be effective for the one-year period beginning October 1, 2012, and extending through September 30, 2013.
Opportunity is presented for Southwestern's customers and other interested parties to receive copies of the study data for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project. If you desire a copy of the repayment study data package for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project, submit your request to the Director, Division of Resources and Rates, Office of Corporate Operations, Southwestern Power Administration, One West Third, Tulsa, OK 74103, (918) 595–6680 or via email to
Following review and consideration of the written comments, Southwestern will submit a rate action proposal for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project to the Deputy Secretary of Energy for confirmation and approval.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 20, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0707 to (1) EPA online using
Dave Sosnowski, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: 734–214–4823; fax number: 734–214–4052; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 5, 2012 (77 FR 13122), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received 2 comments during the comment period, which are addressed in the supporting statement of this ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0707, which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
General program effectiveness is determined by the degree to which a program misses, meets, or exceeds the emission reductions committed to in the state's approved SIP, which, in turn, must meet or exceed the minimum emission reductions expected from the relevant performance standard, as promulgated under EPA's revisions to 40 CFR part 51, in response to requirements established in section 182 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This information will be used by EPA to determine a program's progress toward meeting requirements under 40 CFR part 51, as well as to assess national trends in the area of basic and enhanced I/M programs and to provide background information in support of periodic site visits and evaluations.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 22, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0500, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Brian Ng, Energy Star Residential Branch, Mailcode 6202J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9162; fax number: (202) 343–2200; email address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0500, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
The ENERGY STAR program has been instrumental in identifying cost-effective, innovative solutions for reducing GHG emissions since it was launched by EPA in 1992. This voluntary, market-based, public-private partnership program has boosted the adoption of energy-efficient products, homes, buildings, practices, and services through valuable partnerships, objective measurement tools, and consumer education. ENERGY STAR helps to dismantle barriers to widespread energy efficiency by serving as a trusted source of unbiased information that helps consumers and businesses make choices that are good for the environment and the economy.
Through 2011, nearly 20,000 organizations have partnered with EPA, improved efficiency, and realized
EPA first developed energy efficiency guidelines for new homes in 1995. ENERGY STAR's existing homes effort was rolled out in 2000 to promote cost-effective upgrades in the existing homes market. Both of these efforts promote cost effective, whole house energy efficiency improvements that are independently verified by third parties. Through 2011 there have been more than 1.3 million ENERGY STAR certified new homes built in the U.S., and more than 50,000 existing homes have been improved through the whole house retrofit program, Home Performance with ENERGY STAR.
Since participation in the ENERGY STAR program is voluntary, organizations are not required to submit information to EPA. Information received to date has been submitted voluntarily to EPA and is not of a confidential nature. EPA has developed this ICR to obtain authorization to collect information from the public, including businesses, for the following activities:
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
The burden estimates presented in this notice are from the last approval. EPA is currently evaluating and updating these estimates as part of the ICR renewal process. EPA will discuss its updated estimates, as well as changes from the last approval, in the next
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 20, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0187, to (1) EPA, either online using
Norma Abdul-Malik, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703–308–8753; fax number: 703–308–8617; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 5, 2012 (77 FR 20623), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one comment, which has been addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0187, which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
• Maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or listed under subtitle C that are treated, stored, or disposed of, and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of;
• Operating methods, techniques, and practices for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste;
• Location, design, and construction of such hazardous waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities;
• Contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste; and
• Maintaining or operating such facilities and requiring such additional qualifications as to ownership, continuity of operation, training for personnel, and financial responsibility as may be necessary or desirable.
The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. The collection of this information enables EPA to properly determine whether owners/operators or hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities meet the requirements of Section 3004(a) of RCRA.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0227, to (1) EPA online using
Sally Hamlin, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Air and Radiation, Mail Code 6205J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9711; fax number: (202) 343–2338; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26544), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0227, which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
In 1992, EPA developed regulations under section 609 (57 FR 31242) that were codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart B. Descriptions of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements mandated by section 609 and delineated in the CFR are summarized below.
Section 609(c) of the Act states that by January 1, 1992, no person may service any motor vehicle air conditioner without being properly trained and certified, nor without using properly approved refrigerant handling equipment. To this end, 40 CFR 82.42(a) states that by January 1, 1993, each service provider must have submitted to EPA on a one-time basis a statement signed by the owner of the equipment or another responsible officer that provides the name of the equipment purchaser, the address of the service establishment where the equipment will be located, the manufacturer name, equipment model number, date of manufacture, and equipment serial number. The statement must also indicate that the equipment will be properly used in servicing motor vehicle air conditioners and that each individual authorized by the purchaser to perform service is property trained and certified. The information is used to verify compliance.
Any person who owns approved refrigerant handling equipment must maintain records of the name and address of any facility to which refrigerant is sent and must retain records demonstrating that all persons authorized to operate the equipment are currently certified technicians.
Finally, any person who sells or distributes a class I or class II refrigerant that is in a container of less than 20 pounds must verify that the purchaser is a properly trained and certified technician, unless the purchase of small containers is for resale only. In that case, the seller must obtain a written statement from the purchaser that the containers are for resale only, and must indicate the purchaser's name and business address. In all cases, the seller must display a sign where sales occur that states the certification requirements for purchasers.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it has adopted additional amendments to its emission standards for fleets that operate nonroad, diesel-fueled equipment with engines 25 horsepower (hp) and greater. EPA previously announced an opportunity for public hearing and written comment on CARB's initial request for an authorization of its original regulations (73 FR 58585 (October 7, 2008) and 73 FR 67509 (November 14, 2008)). EPA announced an additional opportunity for public hearing and written comment on certain CARB amendments to the original regulations (75 FR 11880 (March 12, 2010)). By this notice EPA is announcing a completely new public hearing and written comment period.
EPA has scheduled a public hearing on CARB's request on September 20, 2012, beginning at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will be held at 1310 L St. NW., Washington, DC 20005. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notification to David Dickinson at the address noted below. Should you have further questions regarding the hearing, please contact David Dickinson or you may consult the following Web site for any updates:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0691, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
David Dickinson, Compliance Division (6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343–9256, Fax: (202) 343–2804, email address:
(A) New engines which are used in construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment or vehicles and which are smaller than 175 horsepower.
(B) New locomotives or new engines used in locomotives.
EPA's regulation was published at 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994), and regulations set forth therein, 40 CFR part 85, Subpart Q, §§ 85.1601 et seq. A new rule, signed on September 4, 2008, moved these provisions to 40 CFR part 1074.
Section 209(e)(2) requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to enforce standards and other requirements relating to emissions control of new engines not listed under section 209(e)(1). The section 209(e) rule and its codified regulations formally set forth the criteria, located in section 209(e)(2) of the Act, by which EPA must grant California authorization to enforce its new nonroad emission standards and they are as follows:
(a) The Administrator shall grant the authorization if California determines that California standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.
(b) The authorization shall not be granted if the Administrator finds that:
(1) The determination of California is arbitrary and capricious;
(2) California does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or
(3) California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209.
As stated in the preamble to the section 209(e) rule, EPA has interpreted the requirement “California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209” to mean that California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures must be consistent with section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C), as EPA has interpreted that subsection in the context of motor vehicle waivers.
Finally, because California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must be consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Under section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if he finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers of Federal preemption for motor vehicles have stated that State standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time period or if the Federal and State test procedures impose inconsistent certification procedures.
On August 8, 2008, CARB requested that EPA authorize California to enforce its In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation adopted at its July 26, 2007 public hearing (by Resolution 07–19) and subsequently modified after supplemental public comment by CARB's Executive Officer by the In-Use Regulation in Executive Order R–08–002 on April 4, 2008 (these regulations are codified at Title 13, California Code of Regulations sections 2449 through 2449.3). CARB's regulations require fleets that operate nonroad, diesel-fueled equipment with engines 25 hp
On February 11, 2010 CARB requested that EPA grant California authorization to enforce its In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation as amended in: December 2008 (and formally adopted in California on October 19, 2009); January 2009 (and formally adopted in California on December 31, 2009); and, a certain subset of amendments adopted by the CARB Board in July 2009 in response to California Assembly Bill 8 2X (and formally adopted on December 3, 2009). In CARB's February 11, 2010 request letter to EPA it also notes additional amendments adopted in July 2009 and not yet formally adopted by California's Office of Administrative Law. Once this last subset of amendments was formally adopted CARB planned to submit them to EPA for subsequent consideration. Based on CARB's February 11, 2010 request, EPA noticed and conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2010, and provided an opportunity to submit written comment through May 18, 2010.
On March 1, 2012 CARB requested that EPA grant California authorization to enforce its In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation as most recently amended in December 2010 (and formally adopted in California on December 14, 2011).
Based on CARB's March 1, 2012 request and its In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation, EPA invites comment on whether (a) CARB's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs separate standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 209 of the Act.
EPA is requiring that any entity that wishes EPA to consider either oral testimony or written comment provide such testimony or written comment in the context of today's
Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest possible extent and label it as Confidential Business Information (CBI). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision in part on a submission labeled CBI, then a non-confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted for the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket, submissions containing such information should be sent directly to the contact person listed above and not to the pubic docket. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without further notice to the person making comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it has adopted and subsequently amended emission standards applicable to yard trucks powered by off-road engines and the auxiliary engines on two-engine sweepers. By letter dated March 2, 2012, CARB submitted a request seeking EPA authorization of these standards under section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7543(e). This notice announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning California's request and that EPA is accepting written comment on the request.
EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's request on September 20, 2012 beginning at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will be held at 1310 L St NW., Washington, DC 20005. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notification to David Dickinson at the address noted below. Should you have further questions regarding the hearing, please contact David Dickinson or you may consult the following Web site for any updates:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0335, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to David Dickinson at the address noted below. If EPA receives a request for a public hearing, EPA will hold the public hearing at 1310 L St. NW., Washington, DC 20005 at 10:00 a.m.
David Dickinson, Compliance Division (6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343–9256, Fax: (202) 343–2804, email address:
Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles.
(a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable federal standards.
(b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator finds that any of the following are true:
(1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
(2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
(3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
(c) In considering any request from California to authorize the state to adopt or enforce standards or other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate consideration to safety factors (including the potential increased risk of burn or fire) associated with compliance with the California standard.
In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.
CARB has submitted to EPA, for authorization, its yard trucks powered by off-road engines and the auxiliary engines on two-engine sweepers provisions from its “Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles” (commonly referred to as the “Truck and Bus Regulation”) initially adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008 and subsequently amended on September 19, 2011.
As stated above, EPA is offering the opportunity for a public hearing, and requesting written comments on issues relevant to a full waiver analysis. Specifically, please provide comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs separate standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 209 of the Act.
If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the record open until October 22, 2012. Upon expiration of the comment period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the record of the public hearing, if any, relevant written submissions, and other information that he deems pertinent.
Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the great possible extent and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (CBI). If a person making comments want EPA to base its decision in part on a submission labeled CBI, then a non-confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted for the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information in not inadvertently place in the docket, submissions containing such information should be sent directly to the contact person listed above and not to the pubic docket. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without further notice to the person making comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final Order on petition to object to Clean Air Act (Act) Title V operating permit.
This document announces that the EPA Administrator has denied a petition from the Sierra Club, the Clean Water Action Council and the Midwest Environmental Defense Center asking EPA to object to a Title V operating permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products (Georgia-Pacific).
Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the Act provide that a petitioner may ask for judicial review of those portions of the petition which EPA denies in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the
You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 5 Office, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before visiting day. Additionally, the final Order for the Georgia-Pacific petition is available electronically at:
Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 353–4761.
The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object, as appropriate, to Title V operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA review period to object to a Title V operating permit if EPA has not done so. A petition must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise issues during the comment period, or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
On July 23, 2011, EPA received a petition from the Sierra Club, the Clean Water Action Council and the Midwest Environmental Defense Center (Petitioners) requesting that EPA object to the Title V operating permit for Georgia-Pacific. The Petitioners alleged that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the Act. Specifically, the Petitioners alleged that: (1) The permit lacks applicable prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements because WDNR erroneously exempted as “routine maintenance, repair, and replacement” projects that resulted in a significant net emissions increase based on the applicable “actual to potential” emissions test; (2) the permit lacks applicable PSD and new source performance standard requirements that were triggered through non-exempt fuel switching and WDNR improperly deferred addressing this issue; and, (3) the permit lacks applicable requirements ensuring protection of air quality increments which apply pursuant to the Wisconsin state implementation plan and the PSD programs.
On July 23, 2012, the Administrator issued an Order denying the petition. The Order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) will hold a public teleconference on March 22, 2012 from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The meeting is open to the public. For further information regarding the teleconference and background materials, please contact Mark Joyce at the number listed below.
If you wish to make oral comments or submit written comments to the Board, please contact Mark Joyce at least five days prior to the meeting.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is requesting public nominations for technical experts to form an SAB ad hoc panel to provide advice through the chartered SAB on EPA's research related to hydraulic fracturing.
Nominations should be submitted by September 11, 2012 per instructions below.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations may contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564–2134; by fax at (202) 565–2098 or via email at
Over the past few years, the public has expressed concern regarding the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. In response, Congress urged EPA to study the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. In February 2011, EPA published its
EPA ORD is currently developing a “
EPA's SAB Staff Office requests contact information about the person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of
Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, DFO, as indicated above in this notice. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than September 11, 2012. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.
The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations. The names and bio-sketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this
For the EPA SAB Staff Office a review panel includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. In forming this expert panel, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the List of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to be used for panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory panels; and, (f) for the panel as a whole, diversity of expertise and viewpoints.
The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110–48). This confidential form allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which includes membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address
The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement; Request for Public Comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement to address lawsuits filed by the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District and the California Department of Parks and Recreation (together, “Petitioners”) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:
Written comments on the proposed settlement agreements must be received by September 20, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OGC–2012–0644, online at
Geoffrey L. Wilcox, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564–5601; fax number (202) 564–5603; email address:
The California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), on behalf of the Imperial Valley Air Polluton Control District (the “District”), made a SIP submission to EPA containing Regulation VIII as a SIP revision intended to address emissions of PM
The Court heard oral argument on the consolidated challenges on February 15, 2012. On February 17, 2012, the Court issued an Order that referred the case to mediation and stayed further proceedings on the case pending such mediation. Thus, at the suggestion of the Court, EPA, the District, and Parks engaged in settlement discussions to determine whether the legal and factual disputes at issue in the litigation could be resolved through a settlement agreement. This notice describes and seeks comment on the proposed settlement agreement that the parties have negotiated.
The proposed settlement agreement establishes deadlines for both the District and EPA to take specified actions to resolve the litigation. The objective of the parties in the settlement agreement is to address the underlying legal and factual disputes in a way that will be more effective and efficient to achieve the overarching goals of meeting CAA requirements and improving air quality in the Imperial Valley PM
First, the proposed settlement agreement requires that within ninety (90) days of execution of the agreement, the District must revise Regulation VIII and submit it along with supporting documentation to the District's Governing Board. These revisions must be substantially the same as those set forth in Attachment B to the settlement agreement. Attachment B reflects revisions intended by the parties to resolve the legal and substantive concerns with Regulation VIII that were the basis for EPA's partial disapproval. It is understood that these revisions must still meet all local, state, and federal administrative process and substantive requirements before they are deemed to meet applicable requirements and could be incorporated into the SIP for the Imperial Valley PM
Second, the proposed settlement agreement requires that within fourteen (14) days of the Governing Board's adoption of the revised Regulation VIII rules, the District must submit the revised Regulation VIII rules to CARB for expedited submittal to EPA for incorporation into the California SIP.
Third, the proposed settlement agreement requires that within sixty (60) days of submittal by CARB, EPA must sign for publication in the
Fourth, if EPA proposes full approval, then within the notice of proposed rulemaking EPA must make a statement that EPA's preliminary view is that the revised Regulation VIII will constitute “reasonable control” of the sources covered by Regulation VIII for the purpose of evaluating whether an exceedance of the PM
Fifth, if EPA proposes full approval of the revised Regulation VIII, EPA must also sign for publication in the
Sixth, within sixty (60) days of the close of public comment on the proposed action, EPA must sign for publication in the
The proposed settlement agreement also contains various provisions that will govern what may happen if either the District or EPA fails to meet the terms of the agreement.
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will accept written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if these comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OGC–2012–XXXX) contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566–1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2012–19772) published on page 48156 of the issue for Monday, August 13, 2012.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis heading, the entry for MVC, Petroleum Inc., and William Coleman, both of Denver, Colorado; Eugene Nicholas, Cando, North Dakota; Timothy Dodd and Bradley Fey, both of Bismarck, North Dakota; Jeffrey Topp, Grace City, North Dakota; Janet Topp, Grace City, North Dakota; and Roger Kenner, Leeds, North Dakota; as a group acting in concert, is revised to read as follows:
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291:
1.
Comments on this application must be received by August 28, 2012.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 16, 2012.
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 order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Victor DeFrancis (202–326–3495), FTC, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 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 August 16, 2012), 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 September 17, 2012. Write “Brain-Pad, File No. 122 3073” 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 obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided 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 “Brain-Pad, File No. 122 3073” 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 (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Brain-Pad, Inc. and Joseph Manzo, an officer and director of the corporation (“respondents”).
The proposed consent order (“proposed order”) has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves respondents' advertising and promotion of mouthguards. According to the FTC complaint, respondents did not have a reasonable basis to represent in advertising and on packaging for their mouthguards that they reduced the risk of concussions. The FTC further alleges that the respondents made the false and misleading claim that they possessed scientific studies that proved their concussion-reduction risk claims because, in fact, they did not have such evidence.
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits the proposed respondents from misrepresenting that any product will reduce the risk of concussions or reduce the risk of concussions from lower jaw impacts.
Part II of the proposed order prohibits proposed respondents from misrepresenting, with respect to any Covered Product, the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or research, including, but not limited to, any misrepresentation that scientific studies prove that such product reduces the risk of concussions or reduces the risk of concussions from lower jaw impacts. The proposed order defines “Covered Product” as any (1) mouthguard or (2) equipment used in athletic activities that is intended to protect the brain from injury.
Part III of the proposed order prohibits proposed respondents, in connection with the marketing of any Covered Product, from misrepresenting the health benefits, health-related performance, or health-related efficacy of such product.
Parts IV through VIII of the proposed order require respondents: To keep copies of any documents relating to any representation covered by the order; to provide copies of the order to certain of their personnel; to notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order; to notify the Commission of changes in corporate business or employment as to proposed respondent Joseph Manzo individually; and to file compliance reports with the Commission. Part IX provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.
By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Rosch dissenting.
Division of the National Toxicology Program (DNTP), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), HHS.
Availability of Agency Responses.
The NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) announces availability of U.S. Federal agency responses to ICCVAM test method recommendations on the usefulness and limitations of the LUMI-CELL® ER (BG1Luc ER TA) test method to identify human estrogen receptor (ER) agonist and antagonist activity of chemicals. ICCVAM forwarded the recommendations to Federal agencies and made these recommendations available to the public (77 FR 8258). ICCVAM agencies responded with their concurrence on the technical aspects of the BG1Luc ER transcriptional activation (TA) test method recommendations and their agreement that the ICCVAM BG1Luc ER TA test method is a validated screening test to identify substances with
Dr. Warren M. Casey, Deputy Director, NICEATM, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Stop: K2–16, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (telephone) 919–316–4729, (fax) 919–541–0947, (email)
In 2002, ICCVAM evaluated the validation status of
Following completion of the validation study, the ICCVAM Interagency Endocrine Disruptor Working Group, working with NICEATM, prepared a draft background review document (BRD) and draft recommendations for use of the BG1Luc ER TA test method.
The draft BRD and draft ICCVAM recommendations were reviewed in a public meeting (76 FR 4113) of an international independent scientific peer review panel in March 2011. The peer review panel agreed with the draft ICCVAM recommendations that the BG1Luc ER TA test method could be used as a screening test to identify substances with
The final ICCVAM recommendations are included in the
In February 2012, ICCVAM forwarded final test method recommendations on the BG1Luc ER TA test method to U.S. Federal agencies for consideration (77 FR 8258), in accordance with the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285
ICCVAM agencies responded with their concurrence on the technical aspects of the BG1Luc ER TA test method recommendation and their agreement that the ICCVAM BG1Luc ER TA test method is a validated screening test to identify substances with
ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 15 Federal regulatory and research agencies that require, use, generate, or disseminate toxicological and safety
SACATM was established in response to the ICCVAM Authorization Act (42 U.S.C. 285
ICCVAM. 2011. ICCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report: The LUMI–CELL® ER (BG1Luc ER TA) Test Method: An
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
General notice.
In this notice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces fees for vessel sanitation inspections for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. These inspections are conducted by HHS/CDC's Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP). VSP helps the cruise line industry fulfill its responsibility for developing and implementing comprehensive sanitation programs to minimize the risk for acute gastroenteritis. Every vessel that has a foreign itinerary and carries 13 or more passengers is subject to twice-yearly inspections and, when necessary, re-inspection.
These fees are effective October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013.
CAPT Jaret T. Ames, Chief, Vessel Sanitation Program, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE., MS–F–59, Atlanta, Georgia 30341–3717, phone: 800–323–2132 or 954–356–6650, email:
HHS/CDC established the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) in the 1970s as a cooperative activity with the cruise ship industry. VSP helps the cruise ship industry prevent and control the introduction, transmission, and spread of gastrointestinal illnesses on cruise ships. VSP operates under the authority of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264, “Control of Communicable Diseases”). Regulations found at 42 CFR 71.41 (Foreign Quarantine—Requirements Upon Arrival at U.S. Ports: Sanitary Inspection; General Provisions) state that carriers arriving at U.S. ports from foreign areas are subject to sanitary inspections to determine whether rodent, insect, or other vermin infestations exist, contaminated food or water, or other sanitary conditions requiring measures for the prevention of the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases are present.
The fee schedule for sanitation inspections of passenger cruise ships by VSP was first published in the
The following formula is used to determine the fees:
The average cost per inspection is multiplied by size and cost factors to determine the fee for vessels in each size category. The size and cost factors were established in the fee schedule published in the
The fee schedule (Appendix A) will be effective October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. The fee schedule has not changed since October 1, 2006. The cruise ship industry should be aware that if travel expenses for VSP increase, the fees may need to be adjusted before September 30, 2013; travel expenses constitute a sizable portion of VSP's costs. If a fee adjustment is necessary, HHS/CDC will publish a notice 30 days before the effective date.
The fees will apply to all passenger cruise vessels for which inspections are conducted as part of HHS/CDC's VSP.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces challenge contests to improve nationwide preparedness awareness and readiness. HHS/CDC will use social media outlets (blog, Twitter, Facebook) to engage citizens with daily challenges during the month of September 2012. Participants will complete challenges by doing activities, assessing their preparedness needs, and creatively sharing solutions. The challenges will be posted each weekday throughout the month of September. There will be a total of 20 challenges.
The contest will be held daily (Monday through Friday) September 3–October 1, 2012 with a different challenge each day. Interested persons should consult the contest Web site (
Caitlin Shockley, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, M.S. D–44, Atlanta, Georgia 30329. Phone (404) 639–7405; email
To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, an individual or entity:
(1) Shall be at least 13 years old at the time of entry, and any individual under 18 years of age at the time of entry must have permission from a parent or guardian;
(2) Shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States;
(3) Shall comply with all rules set forth herein;
(4) You must use a consistent username throughout the challenge for your submissions to be counted;
(5) Must limit their entry to one per individual or entity per task;
(6) Must submit entries before each challenge submission time period closes;
(7) By submitting a challenge response, participants agree to participate in the competition under the rules developed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
(8) In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States; and
(9) May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment.
(10) Shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis.
This challenge will be internet-based using a variety of social media platforms, including Facebook (
On each weekday in September, CDC will post a daily challenge that must be completed within 24 hours. On Fridays, challenges will be tougher and the challenge period will be extended to 72 hours. There will be a total of 20 challenges in the month of September.
This contest does not require formal registration. Challenge answers will be submitted through a form on the challenge Web site (
At the close of each daily challenge, the form will be disabled as the next challenge is posted. This will be a continual process for all 20 challenge prompts.
Prizes for the Dare to Prepare Challenge have been donated. The following prize items are the anticipated prizes and may be subject to change. CDC's (and the Federal Government's) legal obligation extends only to the payment of any Federal share of the prize, and that the private source is therefore liable for the payment of its share of the prize.
Prizes will be as follows:
Prizes awarded under this competition will be mailed to winners and may be subject to Federal income taxes. HHS will comply with the Internal Revenue Service withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable. Winners who receive prizes are subject to any applicable Federal income taxes and to withholding.
Winners will be selected according to a point-based system. Point value has been assigned to each challenge based on level of difficulty. Incorrect responses will not be awarded points. At the end of the month-long contest, the 3 Contestants who have accumulated the 1st, 2nd, and, 3rd most points will be awarded 1st, 2nd, and 3rd prize, respectively.
In the event multiple Contestants achieve the same high score, the winner will be chosen in a random drawing.
Winners will be announced on October 5, 2012 through the challenge Web site (
Specific guidelines applicants/contestants must follow when submitting their contest entry.
(1) Challenge answers will be submitted through a form on the challenge blog. The form will ask for basic participant information and will provide an answer text box or photo upload option, depending on the challenge.
(2) Points will be awarded based on the correct completion of the task according to the daily challenge task.
(3) At the close of each daily challenge, the form will be disabled as the next challenge is posted. This will be a continual process for all 20 challenge prompts.
(4) Contestants must use a consistent username and email address throughout the challenge for submissions to be counted.
(5) Limited to one entry per person per task.
(6) All submissions must be in English.
(7) Entries must be submitted before each task closes.
(8) All photos must be original content created for this contest. Do not submit a photo that has been submitted elsewhere or previously displayed publicly through any means.
(9) Daily challenge answers must be submitted through the appropriate form available for that day's challenge at
(10) Challenge responses (text or photos) should not include endorsements (names, logos, or slogans), direct or implied, of products, services, or enterprises.
(11) Answers (text or photos) containing profane language, violence or weapons, sexually explicit content, or personal attacks on people or named organizations will result in elimination of the Contestant from the challenge.
(12) Answers (text or photos) containing material that is obscene, offensive, or slanderous will result in elimination of the Contestant from the challenge.
(13) Answers (text or photos) containing material that promotes bigotry, racism, or harm against any group or individual or promotes discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, or age will result in the elimination of the Contestant from the challenge.
(14) Upon submission, each Contestant warrants that he or she is the sole author and owner of the text/photo submitted; that the submission is wholly original with the Contestant; and that it does not infringe on any copyright or any other rights of any third party of which Contestant is aware.
(15) Contestant warrants and represents that its entry does not contain any viruses, spyware, malware, or other software that could cause harm or damage to government information systems.
(16) Winners who receive prizes are subject to any applicable Federal income taxes and to withholding.
HHS/CDC will collect personal information from contestants when they submit each daily challenge. Name information will be requested for each challenge, but further information will not be requested unless the participant is declared a winner. None of the privately submitted information will be used in HHS/CDC or HHS/CDC-affiliated programs without the prior consent of the contestant.
Except where prohibited, participation in the Contest constitutes the winner's consent to use of the winner's name, likeness, photograph, voice, opinions, and/or hometown and state information by the contest's sponsors and/or agents for promotional public health purposes in any media,
HHS/CDC claims an irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive worldwide license to use, copy for use, distribute, display publicly, create derivative works, and license others to do so for the purpose of the Dare to Prepare challenge and/or for the purpose of raising awareness for preparedness.
Finalists and the Contest Winners must comply with all terms and conditions of these Official Rules. Winning is contingent upon fulfilling all requirements herein. The finalists will be notified by email after points have been totaled and winners determined. Awards may be subject to Federal income taxes, and the Department of Health and Human Services will comply with the Internal Revenue Service withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable.
When Contestants provide HHS/CDC with personal information by registering or filling out the submission form through the Challenge.gov Web site, that information is used to respond to Contestants in matters regarding their submission, announcements of entrants, finalists, and winners of the Contest. Information is not collected for commercial marketing. Winners are permitted to cite that they won this contest.
The Contestant/Submitter agrees to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property (including any damage that may result from a virus, malware, etc. to HHS/CDC systems utilized to upload photos), revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from their participation in the competition, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise. The Contestant/Submitter shall be liable for, and shall indemnify and hold harmless the Government against, all actions or claims for any claim, demand, judgment, or other allegation arising from alleged violation of an individual's trademark, copyright, or other legally protected interest in videos submitted to CDC.
Contestants must obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in the amount of $0 for claims by: (1) A third party for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss resulting from an activity carried out in connection with participation in a competition, with the Federal Government named as an additional insured under the registered contestant's insurance policy and registered contestants agreeing to indemnify the Federal Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to competition activities; and (2) the Federal Government for damage or loss to Government property resulting from such an activity. Contestants who are a group must obtain insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility for all members of the group.
HHS/CDC reserves the right to cancel, suspend, and/or modify the Contest, or any part of it, for any reason, at HHS/CDC's sole discretion.
Participation in this Contest constitutes a contestants' full and unconditional agreement to abide by the Contest's Official Rules found at
15 U.S.C. 3719.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Post-Approval Studies 2012 Workshop: Design, Methodology, and Role in Evidence Appraisal Throughout the Total Product Life Cycle.” The topics of discussion will include lessons learned from previous experiences with post-approval studies, improvement of implementation strategies for post-approval studies, best practices, and innovative methodologies for evidence appraisal.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Garris, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg., 66, Rm. 4321, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–5861, email:
To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at
Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, interested persons may submit either written comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852 or electronic comments to
Post-approval studies (PAS) are imposed as conditions of approval for some class III devices regulated under premarket approval (PMA) regulations and are an important public health tool for developing additional evidence on device performance in the postmarket setting. In order for PAS to be most effective, studies must be well-designed, scientifically sound, meaningful and feasible, and must provide complete and timely information. PMA conditions of approval studies are constructed to ask for specific, detailed data in a subsequent PAS relating to unanswered questions in premarket data. However, there are often opportunities for leveraging the design and conduct of PAS, enhancing its utility to other important stakeholders. In addition to the direct role of PMA holders, the role of other public health partners is expanding, as evidenced by a number of efforts external to CDRH that are directly or indirectly involved in collecting and analyzing data relevant to estimating medical device use and risk and in communicating risk to target populations. To ensure a successful PAS program, CDRH, regulated industry, clinical researchers, and other stakeholders must remain well-informed and engaged in continuous dialogue regarding the design, implementation, reporting, and use of PAS and the resultant data. Further, it is the Center's desire to ensure this dialogue results in studies that maximize the public health impact by producing data that is informative to a range of stakeholders.
We intend to discuss a large number of issues at the workshop, including, but not limited to the following: (1) PAS within the Total Product Life Cycle, (2) best practices and improvement of PAS implementation strategies, (3) PAS impact on public health and medical device innovation, and (4) opportunities for innovative uses of PAS data.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
OBA will again offer those members of the public viewing the meeting via webcast (see OBA Meetings Page available at the following URL:
OBA will read comments into the record during the public comment periods as stated on the agenda. It is not unusual for the meeting to run ahead or behind schedule due to changes in the time needed to review a protocol. It is advisable to monitor the webcast to determine when public comments will be read. Each public comment period follows a specific discussion item. OBA will read comments that are related to the protocol or presentation under discussion at that time. General comments unrelated to a specific agenda item will be read at the end of the meeting, time permitting. Comments submitted by email through the OBA Web site will follow any comments by individuals attending the meeting. Comments will be read in the order received and your name and affiliation will be read with the comments. Please note OBA may not be able to read every comment received in the time allotted for public comment. Comments not read will become part of the public record.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract Proposals 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 and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council.
The meetings will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number, and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to Public Law 92–463, notice is hereby given of an amendment of meeting agenda, date change, and participant link change for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council (CMHS NAC).
Public notice was published in the
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Forms G–325, G–325A, G–325B, and G–325C, Biographic Information.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 20, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to DHS, and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529–2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via email at
All submissions received must include the agency name, OMB Control Number and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the Web site at:
We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529; Telephone 202–272–1470.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice allowing for a 60-day public comment period was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 20, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to DHS, and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529–2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via email at
All submissions received must include the agency name, OMB Control Number and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this Information Collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 20, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to DHS, and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529–2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via email at
All submissions received must include the agency name, OMB Control Number and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this Information Collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request for review to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This information collection notice is published in the
During this 60-day period, USCIS will be evaluating whether to revise the Form I–912. Should USCIS decide to revise Form I–912 we will advise the public when we publish the 30-day notice in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until October 22, 2012.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, Clearance Office, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via email at
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the Web site at:
We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Telephone number 202–272–1470.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Amspec Services LLC, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Amspec Services LLC, 1300 North Delaware St., Paulsboro, NJ 08066, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344–1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
The accreditation and approval of Amspec Services LLC, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on May 10, 2012. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2015.
Christopher Mocella, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Amspec Services LLC, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Amspec Services LLC, 100B Redoubt Road, Unit 2, Yorktown, VA 23692, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344–1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
The accreditation and approval of Amspec Services LLC, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on May 31, 2012. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2015.
Christopher Mocella, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202–344–1060.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments; correction.
On August 15, 2012, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a notice announcing the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and an environmental assessment (EA) for public review and comment. The draft CCP/EA describes our proposal for managing the Texas Mid-Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex for the next 15 years. In that notice, we gave an incorrect comment-period end date. We are now republishing the notice with the correct date. If you already submitted a comment, you need not resubmit it.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by September 20, 2012. We will announce upcoming public meetings in local news media.
You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information on the Draft CCP/EA by any of the methods listed below. You may request hard copies or a CD–ROM of the documents. Please contact Jennifer Sanchez, Project Leader, or Carol Torrez, Lead Planner/R2 NWRS NEPA Coordinator.
Jennifer Sanchez, Project Leader, Texas Mid-Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex, CCP—Project, 5247 CR 316, Brazoria, TX, 77422; phone: 979–964–4011; fax: 979–964–4021.
On August 15, 2012, we published a
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for the Texas Mid-Coast NWR Complex. We started this process through a notice in the
The Complex is located along the upper Texas Gulf Coast, approximately 50 miles south of Houston, Texas. It is comprised of three refuges: Brazoria NWR, which was established in 1966, and encompasses 44,414 acres; San Bernard NWR, which was established in 1968, and encompasses 52,400 acres; and Big Boggy NWR, which was established in 1983, and encompasses 4,526 acres. These lands provide a vital complex of salt and freshwater marshes, sloughs, ponds, coastal prairies, and bottomland hardwood forests that provide habitat for a wide variety of resident and migratory wildlife.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-
Formal scoping began with publication of a notice of intent to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment (EA) in the
An ecoregion-wide coordination meeting was held at the Complex's Discovery Center on December 2, 2009, to gain a better understanding of the issues within the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion, where the Complex is located, and to determine the Complex's role in addressing issues impacting fish, wildlife, and their habitats within the larger landscape. In February 2010, the Complex met with representatives from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to discuss their concerns regarding past management, future management, and issues common to both agencies.
Additional public scoping for the Land Protection Planning process was conducted in January 2012. Three open house meetings were held to provide information on the proposed expansion and respond to questions and concerns.
The feedback received at the conclusion of the public involvement period identified numerous concerns from a variety of stakeholders. These concerns were organized by five broad issue categories and one administrative category: Ecoregion, Habitat, Wildlife, Visitor Services, and Facilities/Infrastructure Management.
During the public scoping process with which we started work on this draft CCP, we, other governmental partners, Tribes, and the public, raised multiple issues. Our draft CCP addresses them. A full description of each alternative is in the EA. To address these issues, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives, summarized below.
In addition to any methods in
• Texas Mid-Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex Headquarters Office, CR 316, Brazoria, TX, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
• Our Web site:
• At the following public libraries:
We consider comments substantive if they:
• Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the document;
• Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the environmental assessment (EA);
• Present reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the EA; and/or
• Provide new or additional information relevant to the assessment.
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the form of a final CCP and finding of no significant impact.
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
SDS Company LLC (SDS) and the Broughton Lumber Company (BLC), hereafter referred to as the applicants, have applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an enhancement of survival permit (permit) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The permit application includes a draft Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) and a draft Implementing Agreement (IA). Pursuant to the Service's responsibility to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the application package also includes a draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The Service invites the public to review and comment on the draft SHA, the draft IA, and draft EA.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by September 20, 2012.
You may download copies of the draft SHA, draft IA, and draft EA and obtain additional information on the Internet at
•
•
•
Mark Ostwald, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
The applicants have applied to the Service for an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The permit application includes a draft SHA, draft IA, and draft EA.
The SHA covers about 81,587 acres of managed private forest lands in Washington and Oregon. The proposed term of the permit and the SHA is 60 years. The permit would authorize incidental take of the threatened northern spotted owl (
Approximately 16,031 acres of the forest lands covered under the proposed SHA, inclusive of baseline habitat acres, have also been proposed by the Service as critical habitat for the spotted owl (77 FR 14062; March 8, 2012). These lands are being considered for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation based on the anticipated conservation benefits of this SHA (if it is approved) and economic or other relevant factors.
Under a SHA, participating property owners voluntarily undertake management activities to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species listed under the ESA. SHAs are intended to encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation actions for listed species by assuring the participating property owners that they will not be subject to increased property use restrictions as a result of increasing the abundance of covered (listed) species due to their efforts to improve conditions for covered species on their property. When a participating landowner meets all the terms of an approved SHA, the Service authorizes incidental taking of the covered species at a level that enables the property owner ultimately to return the enrolled property back to agreed-upon baseline conditions. Such authorization is provided under a permit issued pursuant to the provisions of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA.
For an applicant to receive a permit through a SHA, the applicant must submit an application form that includes the following:
1. The common and scientific names of the listed species for which the applicant requests incidental take authorization;
2. A description of how incidental take of the listed species pursuant to the SHA is likely to occur, both as a result of management activities and as a result of the return to baseline; and
3. A SHA that complies with the requirements of the Service's Safe Harbor policy.
The issuance criteria for a permit are as follows:
1. The take of listed species will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and will be in accordance with the term of the SHA;
2. The implementation of the terms of the SHA is reasonably expected to provide a net conservation benefit to the covered species by contributing to its recovery, and the SHA otherwise complies with the Service's Safe Harbor policy;
3. The probable direct and indirect effects of any authorized take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of any listed species;
4. Implementation of the terms of the SHA is consistent with applicable Federal, State, and Tribal laws and regulations;
5. Implementation of the terms of the SHA will not be in conflict with any ongoing conservation or recovery programs for listed species covered by the permit; and
6. The applicant has shown capability for and commitment to implementing all of the terms of the SHA.
The Service's Safe Harbor policy (64 FR 32717; June 17, 1999) and Safe Harbor regulations (September 10, 2003, 68 FR 53320; May 3, 2004, 69 FR 24084) provide important terms and concepts for developing SHAs. The Service's Safe Harbor policy and regulations are available at:
In Washington State, ten Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Areas (SOSEAs) have been established under Washington Forest Practices Rules (WAC 222–16–086) to provide for the conservation needs of the spotted owl. Each SOSEA includes land area goals for spotted owl demographic and dispersal support. Different SOSEAs have different biological goals for spotted owls, depending on the geographic location of the SOSEA and the conservation needs of the spotted owl. The covered lands under the proposed SHA include portions of the White Salmon and the Columbia Gorge SOSEAs.
Under Washington Forest Practices Rules, the following amounts of suitable habitat are generally assumed to be necessary to maintain the viability of each spotted owl site center within each SOSEA in the absence of more specific data or a mitigation plan: (a) All suitable spotted owl habitat within 0.7 miles of each spotted owl site center; and (b) a total of 2,605 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat within the median home range circle with a radius of 1.8 miles. Under Washington Forest Practices Rules, proposed forest practices likely to adversely affect spotted owl habitat in either category (a) or (b) above are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the spotted owl, and such activities would require a Class IV special forest practice authorization and an environmental impact statement per the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and likely require an incidental take permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA.
Outside of SOSEAs, 70 acres of the highest quality suitable spotted owl habitat surrounding a spotted owl site center should be maintained during the nesting season in accordance with Washington Forest Practices Rules (WAC 222–10–041 (5)). Washington Forest Practices Rules also provide for exceptions to operating under the above standard rules. These exceptions include conducting forest management operations under a Service-approved habitat conservation plan and an ITP authorized under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA or a SHA and a permit authorized under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA.
Under Washington Forest Practices Rules, spotted owl habitat is categorized as follows: (1) “Old forest habitat,” which provides all of the characteristics of spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat; (2) “sub-mature habitat,” which provides all of the characteristics of spotted owl roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat; (3) “young forest marginal habitat,” which provides some of the characteristics of spotted owl roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat; and (4) “dispersal habitat,” which is not considered suitable for spotted owl nesting, roosting, or foraging, but does provide for spotted owl dispersal (WAC 222–16–085). The proposed SHA relies on these habitat definitions.
In Oregon, the Oregon Forest Protection Act (OFPA) protects resource sites through a notification process, but the State Forester does not issue permits or approvals. The OFPA protects active spotted owl nesting sites or activity centers occupied by a pair of adult owls capable of breeding by providing for a 70-acre core habitat area around the nest site. The State Forester is required to maintain an inventory of protected resource sites that are used by threatened and endangered species, including the spotted owl. A written plan is required when the State Forester determines a proposed forest management operation will conflict with the protection of a spotted owl nesting site or when the forest management operation is within 300 feet from any nesting site of any threatened or endangered species.
The applicants have submitted a draft SHA for the spotted owl that covers
The WDNR has mapped spotted owl habitat under Washington Forest Practices Rules only within the 1.8-mile radius home range circle around spotted owl sites within SOSEAs. For purposes of this SHA, the applicants have used the WDNR's spotted owl habitat information whenever possible. However, outside of the SOSEAs and within the SOSEAs, but outside of the 1.8-mile-radius circles, the applicants have used and will continue to use stand age to estimate spotted owl habitat acreage.
In preparing the SHA, SDS hired a contractor to determine what forest age was likely to represent “young forest marginal habitat” on the covered lands. The results of this study indicate that while some stands younger than age 60 achieved “young forest marginal habitat” characteristics, at age 60 and older the chance of achieving “young forest marginal habitat” was highly likely. On that basis, forest stands on the SHA-covered lands that are age 60 or older will be considered to meet the definition of “young forest marginal habitat.” Forest stands younger than 60 years may also be considered to meet the definition of “young forest marginal habitat,” if the conditions associated with that habitat are verified by surveys using appropriate methods or forest stands are actively managed in a manner that is likely to achieve that outcome by applying specific habitat enhancements. The Service recognizes that the age of a forest stand is one of many ways to describe spotted owl habitat, and while it may not be as precise as some other approaches, with the forest inventory information available for the lands covered under the proposed SHA, it is a reasonable estimate.
Survey data for spotted owl site centers on or near the applicants' covered lands suggest that very few of these sites are occupied, or possibly that spotted owls are not responding to traditional survey methods. As of 2011, only one site, within the White Salmon SOSEA, is known to contain a spotted owl pair (T. Fleming, National Council for Stream and Air Improvement, Inc., pers comm.); however, several sites have not been regularly surveyed in recent years. About 62,434 acres, or 77 percent, of SHA-covered lands occur in Washington. Approximately 34,064 acres, or 42 percent, of the SHA-covered lands in Washington occur within the Columbia Gorge and White Salmon SOSEAs. Under Washington Forest Practices Rules, the biological goal of both the Columbia Gorge and White Salmon SOSEAs is to provide for spotted owl dispersal and demographic support by maintaining spotted owl habitat to protect the viability of the owl(s) associated with each spotted owl site center or by providing a variety of habitat conditions that support spotted owl dispersal, foraging, and roosting activities.
Within the Columbia Gorge SOSEA, the covered lands intersect the 1.8-mile radius home range circle of four spotted owl sites. Within the White Salmon SOSEA, the covered lands intersect the 1.8-mile home range radius circle of 14 spotted owl sites. Within these two SOSEAs, the covered lands intersect the 0.7-mile radius home range circle of 8 of the 18 total spotted owl sites. Of these spotted owl sites, only one owl site center is located on the covered lands (in the White Salmon SOSEA).
In the White Salmon SOSEA, the WDNR has identified 3,694 acres of the applicants' covered lands (741 acres of “sub-mature habitat” and 2,953 acres of “young forest marginal habitat”) as part of the highest quality spotted owl habitat within the 1.8-mile-radius home range circles of 14 spotted owl site centers.
In the Columbia Gorge SOSEA, the WDNR has not identified the highest quality habitat acres; however, the WDNR has identified 313 acres of “sub-mature habitat” and 690 acres of “young forest marginal habitat” occurring on the covered lands within 1.8 miles of the four spotted owl site centers in this SOSEA. Whether or not 1,003 acres of habitat within 1.8 miles of these four site centers is the highest quality habitat, the applicants are treating them as such for purposes of establishing the spotted owl habitat baseline acres for this SHA.
The applicants have used the total of the above spotted owl habitat acreages (4,697 acres) within these two SOSEAs to define the spotted owl habitat baseline for this SHA on the basis that absent this SHA and permit, if these 4,697 acres of habitat were proposed for timber harvest, the applicants would need to file an application for a class IV special forest practices permit, prepare a SEPA environmental impact statement, and also likely obtain an ITP under the ESA from the Service. Conversely, all other acres of spotted owl habitat currently existing on the covered lands were excluded from the baseline on the basis that the proposed harvest of these forest stands would not require a Class IV special forest practice permit, a SEPA environmental impact statement, or an ITP under the ESA. See the SHA for a full description of the baseline and spotted owl habitat current conditions on the covered lands. However, for purposes of this SHA, the applicants and the Service have agreed upon a higher baseline of 9,424 acres (651 acres of submature habitat, 4,061 acres of young forest marginal habitat, and 4,712 acres of dispersal habitat).
Approximately 19,153 acres or 23 percent of SHA-covered lands occur in Oregon. There are no spotted owl site centers on the covered lands in Oregon, thus, there are no harvest restrictions under the OFPA. Since the covered lands in Oregon are not known to intersect a spotted owl 70-acre core, the spotted owl habitat baseline for covered lands in Oregon is considered as 0 acres in the proposed SHA because there are no timber harvest restrictions under the OFPA. There are six spotted owl sites on National Forest lands in proximity to the covered lands. However, none of the 70-acre cores around these sites intersect the covered lands. It is unlikely that timber harvest activities on the covered lands would require an ITP under the ESA.
The applicants have worked closely with the Service to develop their proposed SHA and the voluntary conservation measures that are expected to provide a net conservation benefit to the spotted owl. The Service and the applicants have agreed upon baseline conditions that will provide a net benefit to the spotted owl above the level that would occur by managing the current habitat conditions without the SHA. Under the applicants' proposed SHA, spotted owl habitat on the covered lands would be managed at scales other than the 1.8-mile radius home range circles within each of the two SOSEAs on the covered lands in Washington. Under this approach, the distribution of spotted owl habitat will not remain static on the covered lands for the duration of the SHA. Instead, the SHA provides for a wider distribution of spotted owl habitat across the covered lands, both inside and outside of the SOSEAs, by leaving habitat on the
While SDS and BLC lands intersect a number of spotted owl territories, the WDNR and the Gifford Pinchot National Forest are the majority landowners within these spotted owl territories. The SHA has been developed to manage for spotted owl conservation at a broader scale, similar to that applied by the WDNR and the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Under this approach, the distribution of spotted owl habitat on the covered lands is intended to be dynamic, shifting across the covered lands over the proposed 60-year duration of the SHA.
Although the baseline condition for spotted owl habitat within the White Salmon SOSEA is 3,694 acres, with implementation of the SHA, a higher baseline of 9,424 acres of spotted owl habitat, consisting of a minimum of 651 acres of “sub-mature habitat,” 4,061 acres of “young forest marginal habitat,” and 4,712 acres of “dispersal habitat” will be maintained within the White Salmon SOSEA for the duration of the SHA. This amount represents a minimum of 5,730 acres of spotted owl habitat above the current conditions of 3,694 acres. Absent this SHA, forest stands on those 5,730 acres would be subject to timber harvest.
At the landscape (i.e., covered lands) scale, the applicants intend to manage the covered lands to provide as much as an additional 12,705 acres of spotted owl “dispersal habitat” and “young forest marginal habitat” during the proposed 60-year term of the SHA by managing existing forest stands at a 60-year, rather than the current 45-year, harvest rotation interval. However, in some periods during the term of the SHA some of these 12,705 acres may be degraded by disease, windthrow, or fire.
Over the proposed 60-year term of the SHA, spotted owl non-habitat will be allowed to develop into spotted owl habitat within the White Salmon SOSEA. Absent this SHA, that habitat development would not occur under current requirements of Washington Forest Practices Rules or the ESA. In the White Salmon SOSEA, 490 acres of forest within 0.7 miles of spotted owl site centers will be allowed to develop into “young forest marginal habitat” and “dispersal habitat.” Approximately 8,382 acres of forest in both SOSEAs outside the 0.7-mile radius circle but within the 1.8-mile radius circle around spotted owl site centers will be allowed to develop into “young forest marginal habitat” and “dispersal habitat” under the SHA. By taking a proactive approach, the applicants will conduct commercial thinning operations, with implementation of their snag retention and creation program, to enhance spotted owl habitat development on the covered lands. Over the first decade of implementing the proposed SHA, within the White Salmon SOSEA, the applicants will thin a minimum of 500 acres of forest to accelerate its development into “young forest marginal habitat” to provide for some of the characteristics of spotted owl roosting and foraging habitat.
Under the SHA, the applicants have proposed the following measures to provide a net conservation benefit to the spotted owl: (1) Maintain 33 percent of their collective ownership within the White Salmon SOSEA, or about 9,424 acres, in spotted owl habitat (16.5 percent in “dispersal habitat” and 16.5 percent in “young forest marginal habitat” or better habitat); (2) maintain 33 percent of their collective ownership in “young forest marginal habitat” or better habitat within 0.7 miles of spotted owl site centers located within the White Salmon SOSEA; (3) maintain existing spotted owl habitat on covered lands within the 0.7-mile-radius circles around four spotted owl sites where the applicants have more than 15 percent ownership by deferring any habitat removal for 10 years; (4) manage for an average 60-year timber harvest rotation interval inside and outside of the SOSEAs that is expected to create more spotted owl “dispersal habitat” and “young forest marginal habitat” across the landscape; (5) provide two habitat set-aside reserves on the covered lands for the term of the SHA: one reserve of approximately 411 acres of spotted owl habitat along the Little White Salmon River and a second reserve of approximately 240 acres of spotted owl habitat around the one spotted owl nest site center on the covered lands; (6) implement a wildlife tree and snag management program that will provide more snags and green trees than required under Washington Forest Practices Rules to improve habitat for spotted owl prey species; (7) not pursue spotted owl circle decertification which, if approved, would remove protections for spotted owl sites under current Washington Forest Practices Rules; and (8) allow spotted owl non-habitat to grow into spotted owl habitat near spotted owl site centers, and accelerate suitable habitat development through active forest management such as commercial thinning. For a full description of the conservation program, see the proposed SHA.
The development of the draft SHA and the proposed issuance of an enhancement of survival permit is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the
1. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that implementation of the SHA or any alternatives could have on endangered and threatened species;
2. Other reasonable alternatives consistent with the purpose of the proposed SHA as described above, and their associated effects;
3. Measures that would minimize and mitigate potentially adverse effects of the proposed action;
4. Identification of any impacts on the human environment that should have been analyzed in the draft EA pursuant to NEPA;
5. Other plans or projects that might be relevant to this action;
6. The proposed term of the Enhancement of Survival Permit and whether the proposed SHA would provide a net conservation benefit to the covered species; and
7. Any other information pertinent to evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the human environment.
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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
The Service will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and public comments submitted thereon to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA and NEPA regulations. The final NEPA and permit determinations will not be completed until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all comments received during the comment period. If we determine that all requirements are met, we will sign the SHA and issue an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to the Applicants for the take of northern spotted owl, incidental to otherwise lawful activities in accordance with terms of the SHA and IA.
We provide this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public and interested State and local government officials of the filing of Plats of Survey in Nevada.
David D. Morlan, Chief, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502–7147, phone: 775–861–6490. 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.
1. The Plats of Survey of the following described lands were officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on May 9, 2012:
A plat, in 5 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east and north boundaries and a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of sections 14 and 24, and the survey of the meanders of portions of the 4,144-foot contour line, Township 32 North, Range 32 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 884, was accepted May 3, 2012.
A plat, in 2 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of sections 6 and 18, and the survey of the meanders of portions of the 4,144-foot contour line, Township 32 North, Range 33 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 884, was accepted May 3, 2012. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Pershing County Water Conservation District.
A plat, in 3 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the South boundary of Township 32 North, Range 32 East and a portion of the South boundary of Township 32 North, Range 33 East, and the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, the west boundary, and a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of sections 8, 18, 20, 30 and 32, and the survey of the meanders of portions of the 4,144-foot contour line, Township 31 North, Range 33 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 896, was accepted May 3, 2012. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Pershing County Water Conservation District.
2. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on May 15, 2012:
A plat, representing the dependent resurvey of the Fourth Standard Parallel North, through a portion of Range 38 East, a portion of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 21 North, Range 38 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 904, was accepted May 10, 2012. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
3. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on June 20, 2012:
A plat, in 4 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the present California-Nevada state line, from witness mile post No. 52
The surveys listed above are now the basic record for describing the lands for all authorized purposes. These surveys have been placed in the open files in the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office and are available to the public as a matter of information. Copies of the surveys and related field notes may be furnished to the public upon payment of the appropriate fees.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine
Joanna Lo (202–205–1888), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, notice is hereby given that on August 15, 2012, a Consent Decree was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
For a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, the United States Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should either be emailed to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney, Suite 9200, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, and at the Region I office of the Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, Massachusetts 02114. The proposed Consent Decree may also be obtained at the following Department of Justice Web site:
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA is giving public notice that the agency proposes to request extension of two currently approved information collections. The first information collection is used when former Federal civilian employees and other authorized individuals request information from or copies of documents in Official Personnel Folders or Employee Medical Folders from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The second information collection is NA Form 6045, Volunteer Service Application, used by individuals who wish to volunteer at the National Archives Building, the National Archives at College Park, regional records services facilities, and Presidential Libraries. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be received on or before October 22, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
Comments should be sent to: Paperwork Reduction Act Comments (NHP), Room 4400, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Rd, College Park, MD 20740–6001; or faxed to 301–713–7409; or electronically mailed to
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301–837–1694, or fax number 301–713–7409.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections; (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 the use of information technology; and (e) whether small businesses are affected by these collections. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the NARA request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
1.
2.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National Science
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95–541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
On July 16, 2012, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–0197 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from § 50.46 of Title 10 of the
The proposed action would add Optimized ZIRLO
The proposed action is needed because the regulation in 10 CFR 50.46 contains acceptance criteria for the ECCS for reactors that have fuel rods fabricated either with Zircaloy or ZIRLO
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the exemption does not present undue risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with common defense and security.
The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the license amendment that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the license amendment to the regulation.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have any foreseeable impacts to land, air, or water resources, including impacts to biota. In addition, there are also no known socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with such proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the NRC's 1984 “Final Environmental Statement Related to operation of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3,” and NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” Supplement 22 regarding Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3.
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 30, 2012, the NRC staff consulted with the Connecticut State official, Michael Firsick of the Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's application dated November 17, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from August 8, 2012 to August 21, 2012. The last biweekly notice was published on August 7, 2012 (77 FR 47123).
You may access information and comment submissions related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by searching on
•
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–0193 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2012–0193 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
1. Operation of the facility would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
This request is for an administrative change only. No actual facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, this request will have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Operation of the facility would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
This request is for an administrative change only. No actual facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the proposed change and no failure modes not bounded by previously evaluated accidents will be created.
Therefore, this request will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Operation of the facility would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant System pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. This request is for an administrative change only. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the proposed change. Additionally, the proposed change will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits, will not relax any safety system settings, and will not relax the bases for any limiting conditions of operation.
Therefore, this proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to allow using the Backup Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System (BSFPCS) as a stand-alone system when the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System (SFPCS) is out of service for maintenance and repair. The SFPCS is allowed to be taken out for maintenance and repairs. The current design, if the SFPCS were out of service due to maintenance, repair or failure, would be to add make up water to the SFP to provide cooling and prevent loss of water level due to boiling. The use of the BSFPCS during times when the SFPCS is out of service for maintenance and repairs provides alternate cooling to limit the SFP temperature during these periods. The failure of the SFPCS and the addition of water is not an accident and consequences are not evaluated. Therefore, the BSFPCS does not mitigate consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Similarly, the BSFPCS is not the initiator of any accident.
Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes revise the UFSAR to allow using the BSFPCS when the SFPCS is out of service for maintenance and repair. The proposed changes involve the use of alternate equipment but failures do not result in different consequences from those of the existing system. The proposed revision to use the BSFPCS as a stand-alone system is not a change to the way that existing equipment is operated. The change involves the use of an alternate cooling system but the design is not associated with accident initiation so no new accident initiators are created. The proposed change involves administrative controls to assure the system capability.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The proposed changes revise the UFSAR to allow using the BSFPCS as a stand-alone system when the SFPCS is out of service for maintenance and repair. The SFPCS is considered more robust than the BSFPCS in terms of its capability to restore operation with a hotter spent fuel pool. However, the BSFPCS will be used as a standalone system only when taking the SFPCS out of service for maintenance and repair. The current allowance is to take the SFPCS out of service for repairs so the BSFPCS will provide margin to reduce the likelihood of SFP boiling. While in service, a postulated moderate energy line break in the BSFPCS can increase the amount of water that can be lost from the SFP. However, the reduced level does not affect the ability to supply makeup water to the SFP to raise the level and provide cooling so there is no significant reduction in the margin for safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The NRC considered the impact of previously evaluated accidents during the rulemaking process, and by promulgations of the revised 10 CFR Part 55 rule, determined that this impact remains acceptable when licensees have an accredited licensed operator training program which is based on a system approach to training (SAT). EGC maintains an institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) National Academy for Nuclear Training (NANT) accredited program which is based on a SAT. The NRC has concluded in RIS 2001–01, “Eligibility of Operator License Applicants,” and NUREG–1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards For Power Reactors,” that standards and guidelines applied by INPO in their accredited training programs are equivalent to those put forth by or endorsed by the NRC. Therefore, maintaining an INPO accredited SAT-based licensed operator training program is equivalent to maintaining an NRC approved licensed operator training program which conforms to applicable NRC Regulatory Guidelines or NRC endorsed industry standards. The proposed changes conform to NANT ACAD 10–001 licensed operator education and experience eligibility requirements.
Based on the above, Exelon concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment involves changes to the licensed operator training programs, which are administrative in nature. The EGC licensed operator training programs have been accredited by National Nuclear Accrediting Board (NNAB) and are based on a SAT, which the NRC has previously found to be acceptable.
Based on the above discussion, EGC concludes that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed TS changes are administrative in nature. The proposed TS changes do not affect plant design, hardware, system operation, or procedures for accident mitigation systems. The proposed changes do not significantly impact the performance or proficiency requirements for licensed operators. As a result, the ability of the plant to respond to and mitigate accidents is unchanged by the proposed TS changes. Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above evaluation of the three criteria, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The design function of the basemat is to provide the interface between the nuclear island structures and the supporting soil. The basemat transfers the load of nuclear island structures to the supporting soil. The basemat
The change to the concrete/rebar details for the basemat does not have an adverse impact on the response of the basemat and nuclear island structures to safe shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions because there is not an adverse change to the seismic floor response spectra and transient and postulated accidents are not affected by seismic motions. The change to the concrete/rebar details for the basemat does not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems because [the] change in the loads on these systems due to seismic motions is negligible. There is no change to the design of plant systems or the response of systems to anticipated transients and postulated accident conditions. The basemat supports the structures and the mechanical system and component supports. There is no change to this function. Because the change to the concrete/rebar details does not change the response of systems to postulated accident conditions and is unrelated to any accident source term parameters, there is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. Therefore, there is no change to the consequences of an accident before or after implementation of the proposed amendment. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the change described create any new accident precursors. Therefore, there is no difference between the probability of a seismically induced event before or after the implementation of the proposed amendment. The concrete specified compressive strength and 0″ dimension are not parameters considered as an initiator for any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, there is no difference in the probability or consequences of a seismically induced event before or after implementation of the proposed amendment.
Based on the considerations outlined above, there is no significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change is an increase in the concrete specified compressive strength for the basemat and a change in the reinforcement details. The change to the concrete/rebar details does not change the design function of the basemat or nuclear island structures. The change to the concrete/rebar details does not change the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. Because the basemat will be designed to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Codes specified in the UFSAR and the concrete will be specified, mixed, batched and placed to the same codes and standards specified in the UFSAR, the change to the concrete/rebar details does not result in a new failure mechanism for the basemat or new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the basemat is not adversely affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The margin of safety for the design of the seismic Category I structures including the basemat is determined by the use of the ACI 349 code and the analyses of the structures required by the UFSAR. The change to the concrete/rebar details does not have an adverse impact on the strength of the basemat. The change to the concrete/rebar details does not have an adverse impact on the seismic design spectra or the structural analysis of the basemat or other nuclear island structures. The change to the concrete/rebar details does not significantly impact the analysis requirements or results for the nuclear island for bearing, settlement, construction sequence, sliding, or overturning, because there is no change in the analysis assumptions for density, weight, friction, or seismic motions due to the increase in the concrete specified compressive strength. There is no increase in the portions of the basemat subject to predicted lift-off (zero contact force) during seismic motions analyzed for the safe shutdown earthquake. There is minimal change to soil pressures on the basemat due to the change in stiffness of the basemat. As a result, the design function of the basemat is not adversely affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 8, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2012.
March 30, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2012.
The supplements dated April 11, 2011, and January 13, 2012, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) has granted the request of STP Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated June 2, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11161A143), as supplemented by letters dated August 1, 2011, March 8, 2012, March 22, 2012, April 3, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML11221A230, ML12079A038, ML12089A023, and ML12101A223, respectively), and May 3, 2012,
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–0196 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Balwant K. Singal, Senior Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–3016; email:
The proposed amendment would have revised the facility Fire Protection Program related to the alternate shutdown capability that is documented in the Fire Hazards Analysis Report for STP, Units 1 and 2. The amendments requested approval to perform certain operator actions from the main control room (MCR) before evacuating the MCR to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire in the MCR.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 2, 2011, as supplemented by letters dated August 1, 2011, March 8, 2012, March 22, 2012, April 3, 2012, and May 3, 2012, and the licensee's letter dated July 31, 2012, which withdrew the application for license amendment.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of August 20, 27, September 3, 10, 17, 24, 2012.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 20, 2012.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 27, 2012.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 3, 2012.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 17, 2012.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301–415–1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, 301–415–1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Bill Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits Branch, at 301–415–6200, TDD: 301–415–2100, or by email at
This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or send an email to
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–117), SEC is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY2011 Service Contract Inventory (SCI) and the FY2010 SCI Analysis. The SCI provides information on FY2011 actions over $25,000 for service contracts. The inventory organizes the information by function to show how SEC distributes contracted resources throughout the agency. SEC developed the inventory per the guidance issued on November 5, 2011 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at
Direct questions regarding the service contract inventory to Vance Cathell, Director Office of Acquisitions 202.551.8385 or
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–
The Department of State's Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy (ACICIP) will hold a public meeting on October 2, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in the Loy Henderson Auditorium of the Harry S Truman Building of the U.S. Department of State. The Truman Building is located at 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520. The Committee provides a formal channel for regular consultation and coordination on major economic, social and legal issues and problems in international communications and information policy, especially as these issues and problems involve users of information and communications services, providers of such services, technology research and development, foreign industrial and regulatory policy, the activities of international organizations with regard to communications and information, and developing country issues.
The meeting will be led by ACICIP Chair Mr. Thomas Wheeler of Core Capital Partners and Ambassador Philip L. Verveer, U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy. The meeting will discuss preparations for the World Conference on International Telecommunications to be held in Dubai, UAE, on December 3–14, 2012.
Members of the public may submit suggestions and comments to the ACICIP. Comments concerning topics to be addressed in the agenda should be received by the ACICIP Executive Secretary (contact information below) at least ten working days prior to the date of the meeting. All comments must be submitted in written form and should not exceed one page. Resource limitations preclude acknowledging or replying to submissions.
While the meeting is open to the public, admittance to the Department of State building is only by means of a pre-clearance. For placement on the pre-clearance list, please submit the following information no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 27, 2012. (Please note that this information is not retained by the ACICIP Executive Secretary and must therefore be re-submitted for each ACICIP meeting):
1. Name of meeting and its date and time.
2. Visitor's full name.
3. Date of birth.
4. Citizenship.
5. Acceptable forms of identification for entry into the U.S. Department of State include:
• U.S. driver's license with photo.
• Passport.
• U.S. government agency ID.
6. ID number on the form of ID that the visitor will show upon entry.
7. Whether the visitor has a need for reasonable accommodation. Such requests received after September 20, 2012, might not be possible to fulfill.
Send the above information to Joseph Burton by fax (202) 647–7407 or email
All visitors for this meeting must use the 23rd Street entrance. The valid ID bearing the number provided with your pre-clearance request will be required for admittance. Non-U.S. government attendees must be escorted by Department of State personnel at all times when in the building.
Personal data is requested pursuant to Public Law 99–399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107–56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities. The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS–D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State–36) at
For further information, please contact Joseph Burton, Executive Secretary of the Committee, at (202) 647–5231 or
General information about ACICIP and the mission of International Communications and Information Policy is available at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of Navigation Performance, (Joint with EUROCAE WG–85).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the third meeting of RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of Navigation Performance, (Joint with EUROCAE WG–85).
The meeting will be held September 17–21, 2012, from 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at EUROCONTROL Headquarters, Rue de la Fusee 96. 1130 Brussels, Belgium.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833–9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 227. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of request to release airport land.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application for a release of approximately 26 acres of airport property at the Porterville Municipal Airport (Airport), Porterville, California from all conditions contained in the Surplus Property Deed and Grant Assurances because the parcel of land is not needed for airport purposes. The land requested to be released is located at the southwest corner of the airport and distant from the airfield. The land had previously been set aside as mitigation for a kit fox preserve, which prevented any airport activity on the property. The wildlife designation was recently eliminated allowing the City of Porterville (City) to acquire the property at its fair market value, thereby serving the interest of civil aviation. It will be developed for another purpose compatible with the airport and the new use will not interfere with the airport or its operation.
Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2012.
Comments on the request may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Robert Lee, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, San Francisco Airports District Office,
In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Public Law 106–181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be published in the
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The City of Porterville, California requested a release from Federal surplus property and grant assurance obligations for approximately 26 acres of airport land to allow for its sale. The property was originally acquired pursuant to the Surplus Property Act of 1944 and was deeded to the City of Porterville on June 16, 1948. The parcel of land is located some distance from the airfield in the southwest corner of the airport; outside of the airport fence line; east of the secondary access road; and north of Teapot Dome Avenue. Due to its location and undeveloped condition, the property cannot be readily used and will not be needed for airport purposes.
The property had been set aside as part of a 40-acre kit fox preserve and could not be used for any other purpose. Based on biological surveys in 2005 and 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the preserve site was no longer needed. By purchasing conservation credits, the City of Porterville was able to obtain an amendment to the 1990 Biological Opinion that established the kit fox preserve in order to eliminate the wildlife designation. The land was never used for airport purposes and is not needed for future airport use. The City of Porterville will acquire the property and use approximately 16 acres for City related purposes and future development. The City will compensate the Airport fund for the fair market value of the land.
The sale price of the parcel will be based on an appraisal of its fair market value. The sales proceeds are being devoted to airport operations and capital projects. The reuse of the property will not interfere with the airport or its operation, thereby serving the interests of civil aviation.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2012.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0069] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Complete copies of each request for collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Timothy M. Pickrell, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W55–204, NVS–421,Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Pickrell's telephone number is (202) 366–2903.
Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are 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 submission of responses.
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collections of information:
Affected Public: Motorists in passenger vehicles at gas stations, fast food restaurants, and other types of sites frequented by children during the time in which the survey is conducted.
Abstract: The National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats is being conducted to respond to the Section 14(i) of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000. The act directs the Department of Transportation to reduce the deaths and injuries among children in the 4 to 8 year old age group that are caused by failure to use a booster seat by 25%. Conducting the National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats provides the Department with invaluable information on who is and is not using booster seats, helping the Department better direct its outreach programs to ensure that children are protected to the greatest degree possible when they ride in motor vehicles. The OMB approval for this survey is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2012. NHTSA seeks an extension to this approval in order to obtain this important survey data, save more children and help to comply with the TREAD Act requirement.
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of the Treasury (Treasury).
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to publish the names of those IRS employees who will serve as members on IRS's Fiscal Year 2012 Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Boards.
This notice is effective September 1, 2012.
Debbie Salisbury, IRS, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 2412, Washington, DC 20224, (202) 622–4116.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice announces the appointment of members to the IRS's SES Performance Review Boards. The names and titles of the executives serving on the boards are as follows:
This document does not meet the Treasury's criteria for significant regulations.
Veterans Health 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 United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)). An emergency clearance is being requested for information needed to focus on patient experiences with and views on barriers and facilitators to specific aspects of the Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) care model: High risk care management, telemedicine and shared medical appointments.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316 or Fax (202) 395–6974. Please refer to “2900–New (VA Form 10–0534).
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, Fax (202) 632–7583 or email:
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health 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 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit to the
Comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316 or Fax (202) 395–6974. Please refer to “2900–New (VA Form 10–0536).”
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, Fax (202) 632–7583 or email:
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health 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 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)). An emergency clearance is being requested for information needed to assess the effectiveness of pain care management provided to veterans.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395–7316 or Fax (202) 395–6974. Please refer to “2900—New VA Form (VA Form 10–0532a–k).
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, Fax (202) 632–7583 or email:
a. Pain Care Management Tracking Tool, VA Form 10–0532.
b. Pain Care Management Self Monitoring Form (unpublished), VA Form 10–0532a.
c. Pain Outcomes Questionnaire (Clark, Gironda, & Young, 2003), VA Form 10–0532b.
d. The Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI; Kearns, Turk, & Rudy, 1985), VA Form 10–0532c.
e. Pain Catastrophizing Scale (Osman, Barrios, Gutierrez, Kopper, Merrifield, & Grittmann, 2000), VA Form 10–0532d.
f. The Oswestry Disability Index (Fairbank & Pynsent, 2000), VA Form 10–0532e.
g. Brief Pain Inventory—Short Form (BPI; Cleeland, 1991). Administered at baseline and each follow-up, VA Form 10–0532f.
h. Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ; Waddell, Newton, et al., 1993), VA Form 10–0532g.
i. The Brief COPE (Carver, 1997), VA Form 10–0532h.
j. Depression and Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS–21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), VA Form 10–0532i.
k. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ–9; Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001), VA Form 10–0532j.
l. Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD–7); Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, & Lowe, 2006), VA Form 10–0532k.
a. VA Form 10–0532—67 hours.
b. VA Form 10–0532a—80 hours.
c. VA Form 10–0532b—200 hours.
d. VA Form 10–0532c—80 hours.
e. VA Form 10–0532d—53 hours.
f. VA Form 10–0532e—53 hours.
g. VA Form 10–0532f—133 hours.
h. VA Form 10–0532g—19 hours.
i. VA Form 10–0532h—27 hours.
j. VA Form 10–0532i—93 hours.
k. VA Form 10–0532j– 67 hours.
l. VA Form 10–0532k—67 hours.
a. VA Form 10–0532—5 minutes.
b. VA Form 10–0532a—10 minutes.
c. VA Form 10–0532b—15 minutes.
d. VA Form 10–0532c—15 minutes.
e. VA Form 10–0532d—10 minutes.
f. VA Form 10–0532e—10 minutes.
g. VA Form 10–0532f—10 minutes.
h. VA Form 10–0532g—7 minutes.
i. VA Form 10–0532h—10 minutes.
j. VA Form 10–0532i—7 minutes.
k. VA Form 10–0532j—5 minutes.
l. VA Form 10–0532k—5 minutes,
a. VA Form 10–0532—800.
b. VA Form 10–0532a—480.
c. VA Form 10–0532b—800.
d. VA Form 10–0532c—320.
e. VA Form 10–0532d—320.
f. VA Form 10–0532e—320.
g. VA Form 10–0532f—800.
h. VA Form 10–0532g—160.
i. VA Form 10–0532h—160.
j. VA Form 10–0532i—800.
k. VA Form 10–0532j—800.
l. VA Form 10–0532k—800
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health 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 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)). An emergency clearance is being requested for information needed to evaluate the universal Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) Systems Redesign, document patients' and their informal caregivers' experience.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316 or FAX (202) 395–6974. Please refer to “2900–New (Patient & Caregiver).
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, FAX (202) 632–7583 or email:
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health 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 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)). An emergency clearance is being requested for information needed to improve dementia care for patients and care givers.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316 or Fax (202) 395–6974. Please refer to “2900—New (VA Form 10–0537).
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, Fax (202) 632–7583 or email:
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health 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 United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)). An emergency clearance is being requested for information needed to improve the care and clinical outcomes of patients with Parkinson's disease.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316 or FAX (202) 395–6974. Please refer to “2900—New (VA Form 10–0533a–c).
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, FAX (202) 632–7583 or email:
a. PACT “Telehealth in the Parkinson's Disease Research, Education and Clinical Center (PADRECC): The Key to the Patient-Centered Medical Home?”, VA Form 10–0533.
b. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) Short Form, VA Form 10–5033a.
c. Quality of Life in Parkinson's Disease, VA Form 10–0533b.
d. Cost and Patient Outcomes Questions, VA Form 10–0533c.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health 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 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)). An emergency clearance is being requested for information needed to improve health care for veterans.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316 or Fax (202) 395–6974. Please refer to “2900—New (VA Form 10–0530a–b).
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, FAX (202) 632–7583 or email:
a. Multidimensional Health Locus of Control, VA Form 10–0530.
b. General Adherence Scale, VA Form 10–0530a.
c. Demographic Data: Patient Background Information, VA Form 10–0530b.
a. VA Form 10–0530—25 hours.
b. VA Form 10–0530a—17 hours.
c. VA Form 10–0530b—17 hours.
a. VA Form 10–0530—3 minutes.
b. VA Form 10–0530a—2 minutes.
c. VA Form 10–0530b—2 minutes.
a. VA Form 10–0530—500.
b. VA Form 10–0530a—500.
c. VA Form 10–0530b—500.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health 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 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)). An emergency clearance is being requested for information needed to develop and evaluate a patient-centered model of care for OEF/OIF veterans with PTSD.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395–7316 or FAX (202) 395–6974. Please refer to “2900–New (VA Form 10–0529a–f).
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, FAX (202) 632–7583 or email:
a. Pain Care Management Tracking Tool, VA Form 10–0532.
b. Pain Care Management Self Monitoring Form (unpublished) 10–0532a.
c. Pain Outcomes Questionnaire (Clark, Gironda, & Young, 2003)10–0532b.
d. The Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI; Kearns, Turk, & Rudy, 1985) 10–0532b.
e. Pain Catastrophizing Scale (Osman, Barrios, Gutierrez, Kopper, Merrifield, & Grittmann, 2000) 10–0532d.
f. The Oswestry Disability Index (Fairbank & Pynsent, 2000) 10–0532e.
g. Brief Pain Inventory—Short Form (BPI; Cleeland, 1991). Administered at baseline and each follow-up. 10–0532f.
h. Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ; Waddell, Newton, et al., 1993) 10–0532g.
i. The Brief COPE (Carver, 1997) 10–0532h.
j. Depression and Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS–21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) 10–0532i.
k. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ–9; Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001) 10–0532j.
l. Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD–7); Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, & Lowe, 2006) 10–0532k.
a. VA Form 10–0532—67 hours.
b. 10–0532A—80 hours.
c. 10–0532B—200 hours.
d. 10–0532C—80 hours.
e. 10–0532D—53 hours.
f. 10–0532E—53 hours.
g. 10–0532F—133 hours.
h. 10–0532G—19 hours.
i. 10–0532H—27 hours.
j. 10–0532I—93 hours.
k. 10–0532J—67 hours.
l. 20–0532K—67 hours.
a. VA Form 10–0532—5 minutes.
b. 10–0532A—10 minutes.
c. 10–0532B—15 minutes.
d. 10–0532C—15 minutes.
e. 10–0532D—10 minutes.
f. 10–0532E—10 minutes.
g. 10–0532F—10 minutes.
h. 10–0532G—7 minutes.
i. 10–0532H—10 minutes.
j. 10–0532I—7 minutes.
k. 10–0532J—5 minutes.
l. 20–0532K—5 minutes.
a. VA Form 10–0532—800.
b. 10–0532A—480.
c. 10–0532B—800.
d. 10–0532C—320.
e. 10–0532D—320.
f. 10–0532E—320.
g. 10–0532F—800.
h. 10–0532G—160.
i. 10–0532H—160.
j. 10–0532I—800.
k. 10–0532J—800.
l. 20–0532K—800.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health 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 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)). An emergency clearance is being requested for information needed to improve the care and clinical outcomes of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF).
Comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2012.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–7316 or FAX (202) 395–6974. Please refer to “2900—New (VA Form 10–0535).
Denise McLamb, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7479, FAX (202) 632–7583 or email:
By direction of the Secretary.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 22, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) signed the current antidumping suspension agreement on fresh tomatoes with growers/exporters of Mexican tomatoes accounting for substantially all (
Judith Wey Rudman or Anne D'Alauro, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0192 or (202) 482–4830, respectively.
On April 18, 1996, the Department initiated an antidumping investigation to determine whether imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). See
On October 10, 1996, the Department and Mexican tomato growers/exporters initialed a proposed agreement to suspend the antidumping investigation. On October 28, 1996, the Department preliminarily determined that imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico were being sold at LTFV in the United States.
On May 31, 2002, Mexican tomato growers/exporters accounting for a significant percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico provided written notice to the Department of their withdrawal from the 1996 Suspension Agreement, effective July 30, 2002. Because the 1996 Suspension Agreement would no longer cover substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico, effective July 30, 2002, the Department terminated the 1996 Suspension Agreement, terminated the five-year sunset review of the suspended investigation, and resumed the antidumping investigation.
On November 8, 2002, the Department and Mexican tomato growers/exporters initialed a proposed agreement suspending the resumed antidumping investigation on imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico. On December 4, 2002, the Department and certain growers/exporters of fresh tomatoes from Mexico signed a new suspension agreement (2002 Suspension Agreement).
On November 26, 2007, Mexican tomato growers/exporters accounting for a significant percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico provided written notice to the Department of their withdrawal from the 2002 Suspension Agreement, effective 90 days from the date of their withdrawal letter (
On November 28, 2007, the Department and certain Mexican tomato growers/exporters initialed a new proposed agreement to suspend the antidumping investigation on imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico. On December 3, 2007, the Department released the initialed agreement to interested parties and provided them an opportunity to comment on the initialed agreement. On December 17 and 18, 2007, several interested parties filed comments in support of the initialed agreement.
Because the 2002 Suspension Agreement would no longer cover substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico, the Department published a notice of intent to terminate the 2002 Suspension Agreement, intent to terminate the five-year sunset review of the suspended investigation, and intent to resume the antidumping investigation.
On January 22, 2008, the Department signed a new suspension agreement (2008 Suspension Agreement) with certain growers/exporters of fresh tomatoes from Mexico.
On June 22, 2012, the U.S. petitioners in the suspended antidumping investigation filed a request for withdrawal of the petition and termination of the investigation and the suspension agreement (see footnote 1 above). Subsequent to their initial submission, the petitioners filed additional information supporting their request on July 11 and 23, and August 6 and 10, 2012, and additional letters of support on July 2, 19, 24, 26, and 30, and August 14, 2012. To date, the petitioners have submitted on the record of the 2008 Suspension Agreement proceeding letters of support from other tomato growers in California, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, and Arizona. The petitioners have also filed letters of support on the same record from the Certified Greenhouse Farmers Association and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, as well as letters of support from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Virginia Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry, the Texas Department of Agriculture, the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, the Georgia Department of Agriculture, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
The Mexican tomato grower/exporter signatories to the agreement oppose terminating the antidumping proceeding and the suspension agreement. The Mexican tomato grower/exporter signatories filed comments opposing the petitioners' request for terminating the proceeding and the suspension agreement on July 5, 17, and 30, and August 13, 2012, and letters of opposition from numerous parties on July 19, 25, 26, 27, 30, and 31, and August 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14, 2012. To date, the Mexican tomato growers/exporters have filed letters on the record of the 2008 Suspension Agreement proceeding opposing withdrawal of the petition and termination of the agreement from the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, based in Nogales, Arizona, numerous U.S. importers, several members of Congress, and several Mexican government officials.
These filings are on the public record of the 2008 Suspension Agreement in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. These filings are also available to registered users via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS) at
The merchandise subject to the suspended investigation is all fresh or chilled tomatoes (fresh tomatoes) which have Mexico as their origin, except for those tomatoes which are for processing. For purposes of this suspended investigation, processing is defined to include preserving by any commercial process, such as canning, dehydrating, drying, or the addition of chemical substances, or converting the tomato product into juices, sauces, or purees. Fresh tomatoes that are imported for cutting up, not further processing (
Commercially grown tomatoes, both for the fresh market and for processing, are classified as Lycopersicon esculentum. Important commercial varieties of fresh tomatoes include common round, cherry, grape, plum, greenhouse, and pear tomatoes, all of which are covered by this investigation.
Tomatoes imported from Mexico covered by this Agreement are classified under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS), according to the season of importation: 0702 and 9906.07.01 through 9906.07.09. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the suspended investigation is dispositive.
Based on the information contained in the petitioners' June 22, 2012, request, and following a review of the statute, our regulations and precedent, the Department has determined to conduct a changed circumstances review pursuant to section 751(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Although the petitioners request that the Department immediately terminate the suspended investigation without further comment or consideration based on their withdrawal of the petition, the Department has determined that a changed circumstances review is warranted. The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), explicitly provides separate and distinct mechanisms for termination of an ongoing investigation (by withdrawal of the petition or indication of lack of interest) and a suspended investigation (through an administrative review or changed circumstances review). Compare section 734(a)(1)(A) of the Act with sections 751(d) and 782(h)(2) of the Act. The Department's regulations (both those currently in effect and those in effect in 1996)
Although the petitioners cite three cases as support for their request to immediately terminate the suspended investigation (Axle and Brake Assemblies from Hungary,
In light of the distinct statutory and regulatory provisions governing termination of an ongoing investigation and termination of a suspended investigation, and consistent with our statement in EPROMs from Japan, the Department has determined that a changed circumstances review is the expected mechanism by which the Department will examine a request to terminate a suspended investigation. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a changed circumstances review.
Both the Act and the Department's current regulations require that “substantially all” domestic producers express a lack of interest in the order or suspension agreement in order for the Department to revoke an order or terminate a suspended investigation.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the initiation of this changed circumstances review and the issue of industry support. Parties who submit comments or information in this proceeding are requested to include with their submission (1) a statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the comments or information. All written comments may be submitted by interested parties not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 of the Department's regulations, and shall be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list. As noted above, in the time since the petitioners requested to withdraw the petition and terminate the suspended investigation, there have been numerous comments on this request filed on the record of the 2008 Suspension Agreement. If interested parties would like those comments to be considered for purposes of this changed circumstances review, they are requested to file the comments on the record of this proceeding.
As soon as practicable following the receipt of any submissions from interested parties during the comment period, the Department will publish in the
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Judith Wey Rudman or Anne D'Alauro, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0192 or (202) 482–4830, respectively.
On August 14, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 351.221(c)(3), and 351.222(g)(3)(i).