Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Reclamation Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Information Security Oversight Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Interim rule.
The Crop Assistance Program (CAP) will provide emergency assistance to reestablish the purchasing power of eligible producers of rice, cotton, soybeans, and sweet potatoes in specified counties for which a Secretarial disaster designation was issued based on excessive moisture and related conditions for the 2009 crop year. This rule specifies the eligibility requirements, payment calculations, and application procedures for CAP. CAP will provide up to $550 million to eligible producers. This rule also proposes a new information collection for the payment application.
We invite you to submit comments on this interim rule. In your comment, please specify RIN 0560–AI11 and include the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
•
•
•
All written comments will be available for public inspection at the above address during business hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. A copy of this rule is available through the FSA home page at
Steve Peterson, Chief, Disaster Assistance Branch, FSA, USDA, Mail Stop 00517, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250–0517; telephone: (202) 720–7641; fax: (202) 690–2130; e-mail:
Due to the nature and severity of disasters resulting from excessive moisture and related conditions in 2009, the Secretary of Agriculture determined that producers of rice, upland cotton, soybeans, and sweet potatoes would be provided limited financial assistance under the authority of clause 3 of section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (Pub. L. 74–320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended, referred to as “section 32”) due to losses that growers of those crops suffered. That clause of Section 32 provides authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to use funds to “reestablish farmers' purchasing power by making payments in connection with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption.” FSA has used this authority in the past to provide assistance to producers whose purchasing power was negatively impacted by unusual market conditions. Through CAP, FSA will use up to $550 million in section 32 funds to help reestablish the purchasing power of eligible producers of rice, upland cotton, soybeans, and sweet potatoes.
CAP is a limited one-time program to reestablish producer purchasing power that was diminished by 2009 crop year losses. The CAP payment is intended to address reestablishing producer purchasing power, not to reimburse producers for specific losses.
To expedite implementation of CAP, to simplify producer application for CAP payments, and to timely distribute CAP payments to eligible producers, FSA has already identified the relevant disaster counties, has producer acreage and ownership shares on file, and has determined the payment rate for each crop. Each of these items is explained in this interim rule.
For CAP, FSA identified the 953 counties in the following 34 States that received Secretarial disaster designations due to excessive moisture and related conditions in 2009: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The following map shows the counties; a list of the counties is available on the FSA Web site and at FSA county offices.
There are several requirements for producers to be eligible for CAP payments. Producers must meet all of the following requirements to be eligible for a CAP payment:
(1) The producer must have on file an existing 2009 crop year form FSA–578, “Report of Acreage,” as planted or considered planted, and that acreage report must have been on file with FSA prior to the publication of this interim rule;
(2) The producer's 2009 form FSA–578, Report of Acreage, must specify the producer's ownership share of a 2009 crop of upland cotton, long grain rice, medium or short grain rice, soybeans, or sweet potatoes, and the amount of acres of those crops planted or considered planted;
(3) The producer's eligible crop acreage must be located in a primary county for which a Secretarial disaster designation was issued based on excessive moisture and related conditions for the 2009 crop year;
(4) The producer must have had a five percent or greater loss in crop quality or quantity of the 2009 crop of upland cotton, long grain rice, medium or short grain rice, soybeans, or sweet potatoes, for which the producer applies for a CAP payment; the loss must be due to a disaster, as defined in this rule, and the five percent loss is a minimum threshold for CAP eligibility; greater losses do not qualify producers for a larger payment; and
(5) The producer must apply for a CAP payment by December 9, 2010 certifying that the loss which was due to disaster in 2009 was greater than or equal to the five percent threshold; the loss threshold must be met for each crop for which the producer requests a CAP payment.
The identified disaster counties are primary disaster counties only; crop acreage in contiguous counties that are not declared disaster counties is not eligible for CAP.
To be eligible for payment, a producer must have had a loss of five percent or greater on a farm in the eligible disaster county in quality or quantity as compared to historic or expected production for that farm to the crop of upland cotton, long grain rice, medium or short grain rice, soybeans, or sweet potatoes planted or considered planted in 2009 for which the producer is applying for a CAP payment.
The five percent loss threshold is a per producer per crop on a farm minimum threshold for 2009; it is not just a per farm threshold. The individual producer's share of the crop on the farm must have suffered the loss, independent of what other producers of the crop on that farm may have produced or their loss. The producer will need to calculate quantity losses based on historical or expected production of the crop. The producer will need to certify that the loss was at least five percent and will need to maintain verifiable and reliable documentation to justify the certification.
For example, if a producer has a share in a farm with 2009 cotton and rice crops, but only suffered a five percent or greater loss for the rice crop, that producer can be eligible for a payment on the rice crop, but not the cotton crop. Similarly, if a farm had both cotton and corn crops in 2009, only a cotton crop loss can meet the eligibility requirement for a CAP payment, regardless of what, if any, losses there were for the corn or the farm as a whole because corn is not an eligible commodity under CAP.
The determination by a producer that a crop suffered a five percent or greater loss is based on the producer's self-certification. Producers must be able to document, if requested by FSA, how they determined that the five percent loss threshold was met. For quantity losses, the calculation must use historic yield and expected production as defined in this rule. FSA will provide county average yield data on request. At time of application, a producer will not be required to submit documentation of production, expected production, quality, or loss. However, a producer who applies for CAP will be required to retain documentation in support of their application for 3 years after the date of application. If documentation is not submitted when required by FSA or if documentation cannot demonstrate that the minimum loss was suffered as claimed for a crop and farm, the producer will be required to refund the payment to FSA.
The amount of acreage for each crop that will be used to determine the amount of the CAP payment (payment acres) and the producer's ownership share of the crop will be the amount previously reported to FSA by the producer for the 2009 crop year form FSA–578, Report of Acreage, that is on file in FSA as of October 22, 2010.
For the purposes of CAP, a producer cannot revise a crop acreage report for the 2009 crop year (such reports are filed using form FSA–578, Report of Acreage) after submitting the CAP application to increase the payment or to create an eligibility. If a producer needs to amend or correct the 2009 FSA–578 for other programs, they may be able to do so, subject to the rules pertaining to those programs. However, no amended 2009 FSA–578 that includes increased crop acreage on a farm will be considered in calculating CAP payments.
CAP payments will be calculated by multiplying the total number of acres of the crop planted or considered planted on the farm by that crop's per-acre payment rate. FSA determined the rates based on average per-acre revenue losses on the 2009 crop due to moisture-related disasters. The payment rate, which is based on USDA data of average per acre 2009 crop losses and limited by available funding, cannot be greater than actual losses for producers.
The CAP payment will be based on the producer's share of the reported or determined planted or considered planted acres of the crop times the per acre payment rate for the crop. If there is more than one eligible producer on a farm that shared in the crop, each producer may apply for a payment based on their share in the crop.
For example, Producer A has a 100 percent share interest of 2009 upland cotton and sweet potatoes. Producer A planted 1,000 acres of 2009 crop upland cotton and certifies a production loss of over five percent due to disaster. Upland cotton's payment rate is $17.70 per acre. Producer A also planted 100 acres of sweet potatoes and certifies a production loss of over five percent of the crop due to a disaster. The sweet potato payment rate is $155.41 per acre. The payment calculation would be as follows: 1,000 acres (upland cotton planted) times $17.70 (payment rate for upland cotton) = $17,700 CAP payment for upland cotton. For sweet potato, 100 acres (sweet potatoes planted) times $155.41 (payment rate for sweet potatoes) = $15,541 CAP payment for
To be eligible for CAP, a producer must have had a loss on a farm in a disaster county that was declared a disaster because of excess moisture or a related condition as specified in the regulation. To identify the disaster counties for CAP, FSA identified those counties that had a Secretarial disaster designation based on flood, flash flooding, excessive rain, moisture, humidity, severe storms, thunderstorms, ground saturation or standing water, hail, winter storms, ice storms, snow, blizzard, hurricane, typhoons, tropical storms, or cold wet weather.
Only a producer who has an ownership share and risk of loss in the crop will qualify for CAP. Any verbal or written agreement that precludes a producer from having an ownership share disqualifies the producer for CAP, regardless of whether the producer is listed on a form FSA–578, Report of Acreage, or any other program document, as having a share of the crop. For example, a contract grower would be ineligible.
A person ineligible for 2009 crop year benefits because of fraud or any other program violation in any other FSA or Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) program is ineligible for CAP to the extent otherwise provided in law.
There is no requirement to have crop insurance coverage or coverage under the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) in order to be eligible for CAP. Producers who received NAP payments for a loss of a 2009 crop of long grain rice, medium or short grain rice, upland cotton, soybeans, or sweet potatoes are eligible for CAP benefits, subject to meeting all other eligibility requirements for CAP; the multiple benefit exclusion provisions of 7 CFR 1437.13 do not apply. Producers can receive NAP payments and CAP payments for the same 2009 crop. NAP payments are for specific crop losses, whereas CAP payments are to help reestablish farmers' purchasing power. Therefore, CAP payments are not duplicate payments.
General eligibility requirements that apply to other FSA and CCC programs also apply to CAP. Specifically, recordkeeping requirements and compliance with Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation provisions in this rule are similar to those for previous ad hoc crop disaster programs. Records documenting 2009 losses must be kept for 3 years after the application is filed. CAP applicants must have been in compliance with the provisions of 7 CFR part 12, “Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation,” during the 2009 crop year. Those regulations provide for a denial of benefits for failing to comply with general requirements regarding the handling of highly erodible cropland and wetlands.
CAP payments will be treated as 2009 revenue under the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program, which is specified in 7 CFR part 760, subpart G.
The payment limits and adjusted gross income (AGI) limits that apply to other CCC and FSA programs apply to CAP. Specifically, no person or legal entity (excluding a joint venture or general partnership), as defined and determined by the regulations in 7 CFR part 1400 may receive, directly or indirectly, more than $100,000 in CAP benefits. For the payment limit, both indirect and direct benefits are counted by attribution; the total amount of payments are attributed to a person by taking into account the direct and indirect ownership interests of the person in a legal entity that is eligible to receive payments. In the case of a legal entity, the same payment is attributed to the direct payee in the full amount and to those that have an indirect interest to the amount of that indirect interest. This is the same way attribution is done for other FSA and CCC programs.
Payment and average adjusted gross income (AGI) limits will be determined as using the standards of 7 CFR part 1400 in the same manner as for CCC programs governed by that part. In applying the limitation on AGI for 2009, a person or legal entity with an average adjusted gross nonfarm income, as defined in 7 CFR 1400.3, that exceeds $500,000 for the 3 taxable years preceding 2008 (2005–2007) will not be eligible to receive CAP payments. Likewise, if a person with an indirect interest in a legal entity has an average nonfarm AGI over $500,000, then the payment to the legal entity will be commensurately reduced based on the interest of that person in the legal entity receiving the payment.
The regulations in 7 CFR 1400.105 specify how payments will be attributed. Attribution will be tracked through four levels of ownership in legal entities. In addition, the 2008 Farm Bill imposed limitations on payments to foreign persons; FSA adopted those limits for CAP as specified in this rule.
The regulations in 7 CFR part 760 subpart B that provide general provisions for other recent FSA disaster assistance programs also apply for CAP.
This rule announces a 45-day period for submitting CAP applications, beginning the day this rule is published in the
During the application period, producers may apply in person at FSA county offices during regular business hours. Applications may also be submitted to FSA by mail or fax. CAP application forms may be obtained in person, by mail, telephone, and fax from any FSA county office or via the Internet at
An application must include the specific application form for CAP, FSA–860, and the following forms, which for most producers will already be on file at the FSA county office:
(1) CCC–902, Farm Operating Plan for Individual or Legal Entity;
(2) CCC–926, Average Adjusted Gross Income Statement for 2009;
(3) AD–1026, Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation Certification; and
(4) FSA–578, Report of Acreage, for 2009, which must already be on file at the FSA county office.
See the Paperwork Reduction Act section below for more information about the application.
Any application received by FSA after December 9, 2010 will be ineligible for payment.
Information provided on applications and supporting documentation will be subject to verification by FSA; however, FSA is under no obligation to perform spot checks within any specific time frame and applicants are responsible for producing documents substantiating their application when requested by FSA.
In the event that FSA finds that a payment was issued based on inaccurate
Each producer on the farm applies separately for their own CAP payment.
Because this rule involves discretionary disaster relief and authorities it was determined that under these circumstances it would be contrary to the public interest to withhold relief for prior public comment. The Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides generally that before rules are issued by Government agencies, the rule must be published in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this interim rule as economically significant under Executive Order 12866, and, therefore OMB reviewed this rule. A cost-benefit analysis of this rule is summarized below and is available from the contact listed above.
The Crop Assistance Program is intended to reestablish purchasing power to producers of 2009 crop of rice, upland cotton, soybeans, or sweet potatoes who grew those crops in specified counties for which a Secretarial disaster designation was issued based on excessive moisture and related conditions for the 2009 crop year. Payments will be calculated based on acreage reported for 2009 crops. The per acre rate payment was set by FSA based on each crop's national average revenue per harvested acre in 2009; the payment rate was determined by dividing each crop's total value of production (revenue) by the amount of production, and then multiplying the product by 3.7 percent. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data was used for the amount of production and World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) data was used for price (value) of production. In summary, producers will be paid based on their reported 2009 acreage for each crop, multiplied by a payment rate that represents 3.7 percent of average revenue per acre.
The total cost to the government, and the corresponding benefit to producers, for CAP will be between $137 million and $543 million, depending upon how many producers in disaster counties apply for payment. The low end of the range was estimated using NASS data of actual yield losses in 2009 as compared to 2004 through 2008 yields; it represents the cost if only producers in counties with five percent or greater yield losses apply. (Yield data was not available for sweet potatoes; the average loss of similar crops was used as an estimate). The high end of the range is estimated using total acres of eligible crops in primary disaster counties in 2009; it represents the costs and benefits if all producers in disaster counties with eligible crops apply for payment.
CAP payments will be considered revenue for the purpose of calculating payments for the SURE program. CAP payments are estimated to decrease total 2009 SURE payments by $50 million to $107 million, depending on how many producers who apply for CAP also had sufficient losses (and met other requirements) to qualify for 2009 SURE program payments.
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this interim rule because CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. As noted above in the Notice and Comment section, CCC is using the good cause justification of the Administrative Procedures Act to issue an interim rule effective on publication with an opportunity for comment.
The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). CAP solely provides financial assistance to reestablish purchasing power to eligible producers who suffered an eligible loss during the 2009 crop year for specific commodities. Therefore, FSA has determined that no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement will be prepared consistent with 7 CFR 799.10(b)(2)(x).
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published in the
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988. The provisions of this proposed rule will not have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations, or policies that conflict with such provision or which otherwise impede their full implementation. The rule will not have retroactive effect. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding this rule, all administrative remedies must be exhausted.
The policies contained in this rule will not have any substantial direct effect on States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor would this proposed rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
The policies contained in this rule do not have tribal implications that preempt tribal law. FSA provided the opportunity for government-to-government consultation with Tribal governments on CAP prior to the publication of this interim rule. The Tribal consultation was available through a teleconference. Leadership from all Federally recognized Tribes that have lands within the affected counties were invited to the consultation, which was held on October 12, 2010. The FSA Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs with representation from the FSA Administrator's office as well as the USDA Office of Tribal Relations
This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104–4) for State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. In addition, FSA is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Therefore, this interim rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
This rule has been determined to be major under SBREFA (Pub. L. 104–121). SBREFA normally requires that an agency delay the effective date of a major rule for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Section 808 of SBREFA allows an agency to make a major regulation effective immediately if the agency finds there is good cause to do so. FSA finds for the reasons given earlier with respect to Notice and Comment that it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of this rule because it would significantly delay assistance to the producers affected by disasters in 2009 addressed by this rule. Therefore, this rule is effective immediately.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), FSA submitted the information collection request for CAP to OMB under the emergency procedure in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act so FSA can begin the sign-up period upon publication of this rule.
FSA is making payments to eligible producers of 2009 upland cotton, long grain rice, medium or short grain rice, soybeans, and sweet potatoes. CAP is for producers who had at least a five percent loss due to disaster in counties having a Secretarial disaster designation for 2009 due to excessive moisture or related conditions.
For an application to be accepted and approved, the producer will be required to provide the following information: producer telephone number (optional), whether eligible crops suffered a five percent or greater loss, whether each claimed loss was due to quantity or quality loss, and producer's signature.
The following estimated burden also includes an average travel time of one hour for the producer's travel to the FSA county office. The majority of producers will only need to submit one application form (FSA–860) because the rest of their information will already be on-file and up to date in the FSA county office. However, approximately 673 respondents will also need to complete forms AD–1026, CCC–902 and CCC–926 if FSA does not have them on file.
CCC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government Information and services, and for other purposes.
Dairy products, Indemnity payments, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 612c.
(a) This subpart specifies the eligibility requirements and payment calculations for the Crop Assistance Program (CAP), which will be administered using funds authorized by Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended).
(b) CAP, within the limits of the funds made available by the Secretary for this program, is intended to help reestablish purchasing power to producers of long grain rice, medium or short grain rice, upland cotton, soybeans, and sweet potatoes who suffered a five percent or greater loss in the 2009 crop year due to disaster.
(c) Only producers who have a share in a farm located in a disaster county (a county that is the primary county that is the subject of a Secretarial disaster designation for 2009 crop year due to excessive moisture and related conditions, as determined by FSA) are eligible for CAP benefits.
The following definitions apply to CAP. The definitions in parts 718, 760, and 1400 of this title also apply, except where they conflict with the definitions in this section.
(1) For insurable crops, the crop year as defined according to the applicable crop insurance policy;
(2) For NAP covered crops, the crop year as provided in part 1437 of this title.
(1) An insured producer's yield will be the higher of the county average yield listed or the approved federal crop insurance APH, for the disaster year.
(2) A NAP producer's yield will be the higher of the county average yield or NAP approved yield for the disaster year.
(a) A producer must meet all of the requirements in this subpart to be eligible for a CAP payment.
(b) To be eligible, a producer must be an individual or entity who is entitled to an ownership share of an eligible crop and who has the production and market risks associated with the agricultural production of the crop on a farm. An eligible producer must be a:
(1) Citizen of the United States;
(2) Resident alien, which for purposes of this subpart means “lawful alien” as defined in 7 CFR part 1400;
(3) Partnership of citizens of the United States; or
(4) Corporation, limited liability corporation, or other farm organizational structure organized under State law.
(c) To be eligible, a producer must have:
(1) Produced a 2009 crop year planted or considered planted long grain rice, medium or short grain rice, upland cotton, soybean, or sweet potato crop in a 2009 eligible disaster county, and
(2) Suffered a five percent or greater loss in an eligible disaster county in 2009. A list of the disaster counties for CAP is available on the FSA Web site and at FSA county offices.
(a) To request a CAP payment, the producer must submit a CAP application on the form designated by FSA to the FSA county office responsible for administration of the farm.
(b) Producers submitting an application for a crop must certify that they suffered a five percent or greater loss of the crop on the farm in a disaster county and that they have documentation to support that certification as required in § 760.713.
(c) Once submitted by a producer, the application is considered to contain information and certifications of and pertaining to the producer's crop and farm regardless of who entered the information on the application.
(d) Producers requesting benefits under CAP must certify the accuracy and truthfulness of the information provided in the application as well as with any documentation that may be provided with the application or documentation that will be provided to FSA in substantiation of the application. All certifications and information are subject to verification by FSA.
(e) Producers applying for CAP must certify that they have an eligible ownership share interest in the 2009 crop acreage that sustained a five percent or greater loss. The determination and certification by a producer that a crop suffered the requisite five percent or greater farm crop loss is the expected quantity of production of the crop less the actual production of the crop.
(f) In the event that the producer does not submit documentation in response to any request of FSA to support the producer's application or documentation furnished does not show a crop loss of at least five percent as claimed, the application for that crop will be disapproved in its entirety. For quantity losses, producers need to apply a standard similar to the historic yield provisions used under previous ad hoc disaster programs. Those provisions provided that a historic yield was the higher of a county average yield or a producer's approved yield. Thus, if an applicant is determining whether a farm has a crop that suffered a loss of five percent or greater on the farm's planted and considered planted acreage, the applicant could compare the amount successfully produced in 2009 from those planted and considered planted acres to what the participant expected to produce from that acreage using either the county average yield (which may be obtained from FSA by request) or based on analysis of approved actual production history yields that may exist for producers of the crop on the farm.
(g) Unless otherwise determined necessary by FSA, producers will not be required to submit documentation of farm crop production or loss at time of application. FSA's decision not to require proof, documentation, or evidence in support of any application at time of application is not to be construed as a determination of a producer's eligibility.
(h) Producers who apply are required to retain documentation in support of their application for three years after the date of application in accordance with § 760.713.
(i) The application submitted in accordance with this section is not considered valid and complete for issuance of payment under this part unless FSA determines all the applicable eligibility provisions have been satisfied and the producer has submitted all the required forms. In addition to the completed, certified application form, if the information for the following forms or certifications is not on file in the FSA county office or is not current for 2009, the producer must also submit:
(1) Farm operating plan for individual or legal entity;
(2) Average adjusted gross income statement for 2009; and
(3) Highly erodible land conservation (HELC) and wetland conservation certification.
(j) Application approval and payment by FSA does not relieve a producer from having to submit any form, records, or documentation required, but not filed at the time of application or payment, according to paragraph (h) of this section.
(a) CAP payments will be calculated by multiplying the total number of reported or determined acres of an eligible crop by the per acre payment rate for that crop. Payment rates are as follows:
(1) Long grain rice, $31.93 per acre;
(2) Medium or short grain rice, $52.46 per acre;
(3) Upland cotton, $17.70 per acre;
(4) Soybeans, $15.62 per acre; and
(5) Sweet potatoes, $155.41 per acre.
(b) Payments will be calculated based on the 2009 crop year reported or determined planted or considered planted acres of an eligible crop on a farm in a disaster county as reflected on a form FSA–578, Report of Acreage, on file in FSA as of October 22, 2010.
(a) Payments specified in this subpart are subject to the availability of funds. The total available program funds are $550 million. In order to keep payments within available funds, the Deputy Administrator may pro-rate payments, to the extent the Deputy Administrator determines that necessary.
(b) Funds for CAP are being made available only for the 2009 crop year reported and determined eligible crop acreage in disaster counties as reflected on a form FSA–578, Report of Acreage, as of October 22, 2010.
(a) All certifications, applications, and documentation are subject to spot check and verification by FSA. Producers must submit documentation to FSA if and when FSA requests documentation to substantiate any certified application.
(b) Producers are responsible for retaining or providing, when required, verifiable or reliable production or loss records available for the crop. Producers are also responsible for summarizing all the production or loss evidence and providing the information in a manner that can be understood by the county committee.
(c) Any producer receiving payment under this subpart agrees to maintain any books, records, and accounts supporting any information or certification made according to this part for 3 years after the end of the year following application.
(d) Producers receiving payments or any other person who furnishes such information to FSA must permit FSA or authorized representatives of USDA and the General Accounting Office during regular business hours to inspect, examine, and to allow such persons to make copies of such books, records or other items for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of the information provided by the producer.
(a) A person ineligible under § 1437.15(c) of this title concerning violations of the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program for the 2009 crop year is ineligible for benefits under this subpart.
(b) A person ineligible under § 400.458 of this title for the 2009 crop year concerning violations of crop insurance regulations is ineligible for CAP.
(c) In the event that any request for CAP payment resulted from erroneous information or a miscalculation, the payment will be recalculated and the producer must refund any excess to FSA with interest to be calculated from the date of the disbursement to the producer. If for whatever reason the producer signing a CAP application overstates the loss level of the crop when the actual loss level determined by FSA for the crop is less than the level claimed, or where the CAP payment would exceed the producer's actual loss, the application will be disapproved for the crop and the full CAP payment for that crop will be required to be refunded with interest from date of disbursement. The CAP payment cannot exceed the producer's actual loss.
(d) The liability of anyone for any penalty or sanction under or in connection with this subpart, or for any refund to FSA or related charge is in addition to any other liability of such person under any civil or criminal fraud statute or any other provision of law including, but not limited to: 18 U.S.C. 286, 287, 371, 641, 651, 1001, and 1014; 15 U.S.C. 714; and 31 U.S.C. 3729.
(e) The regulations in parts 11 and 780 of this title apply to determinations under this subpart.
(f) Any payment to any person under this subpart will be made without regard to questions of title under State law and without regard to any claim or lien against the crop, or its proceeds.
(g) Any payment made under this subpart will be considered farm revenue for 2009 for the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program.
(h) The average AGI limitation provisions in part 1400 of this title relating to limits on payments for persons or legal entities, excluding joint ventures and general partnerships, with certain levels of average adjusted gross income (AGI) apply to each applicant for CAP. Specifically, a person or legal entity with an average adjusted gross nonfarm income, as defined in § 1404.3 of this title, that exceeds $500,000 is not eligible to receive CAP payments.
(i) No person or legal entity, excluding a joint venture or general partnership, as determined by the rules in part 1400 of this title may receive, directly or indirectly, more than $100,000 in payments under this subpart.
(j) The direct attribution provisions in part 1400 of this title apply to CAP. Under those rules, any payment to any legal entity will also be considered for payment limitation purposes to be a payment to persons or legal entities with an interest in the legal entity or in a sub-entity. If any such interested person or legal entity is over the payment limitation because of direct payment or their indirect interests or a combination thereof, then the payment to the actual payee will be reduced commensurate with the amount of the interest of the interested person in the payee. Likewise, by the same method, if anyone with a direct or indirect interest in a legal entity or sub-entity of a payee entity exceeds the AGI levels that would allow a producer to directly receive a CAP payment, then the payment to the actual payee will be reduced commensurately with that interest. For CAP, unless otherwise specified in part 1400 of this title, the AGI amount will be that person's or legal entity's average AGI for the three taxable years that precede the 2008 taxable year (that is 2005, 2006, and 2007).
(k) For the purposes of the effect of lien on eligibility for Federal programs (28 U.S.C. 3201(e)), FSA waives the
(l) For CAP, producers are either eligible or ineligible. Therefore, the provisions of § 718.304 of this chapter, “Failure to Fully Comply,” do not apply to this subpart.
(m) The regulations in subpart B apply to CAP. In addition to those regulations that specifically include subpart H or apply to this part, the following sections specifically apply to this subpart: §§ 760.113(a), 760.114, and 760.116(a).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending the regulations governing the importation of certain animals, meat, and other animal products by removing Japan from the list of regions considered to be free of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and also from the list of FMD-free regions that are subject to certain import restrictions on meat and meat products because of their proximity to or trading relationships with FMD- or rinderpest-affected countries. We are taking this action because the existence of FMD has been confirmed in Japan. This action restricts the importation of ruminants and swine and the fresh meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine from that country and is necessary to prevent the introduction of FMD into the United States.
This interim rule is effective October 25, 2010. However, we are imposing this restriction retroactively to April 20, 2010. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 27, 2010.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Dr. Kelly Rhodes, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services—Import, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–4356.
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a severe and highly contagious viral infection affecting cloven-hoofed ruminants, including cattle, deer, goats, sheep, swine, and other animals. The disease is highly communicable and is characterized by fever and blister-like lesions on the tongue and lips, in the mouth, on the teats, and between the hooves. It causes severe losses in the production of meat, milk, and other dairy products. Although many animals survive the disease, it leaves them debilitated. FMD is endemic to more than two-thirds of the world and is considered to be widespread in parts of Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America. Because of the highly communicable nature of FMD, it is necessary to protect livestock that are free of the disease from any animals, animal products, or other articles that might be contaminated with the FMD virus.
Although FMD was eradicated in the United States in 1929, the virus could be reintroduced by a single infected animal, animal product, or person carrying the virus. Once introduced, FMD can spread quickly through exposure to aerosols from infected animals, direct contact with infected animals, contact with contaminated feed or equipment, ingestion of animal products, or contact with humans harboring the virus or carrying the virus on their clothing.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including rinderpest and FMD. Section 94.1 of the regulations lists regions of the world that are considered free of rinderpest and FMD. Japan has been listed in § 94.1 as a region considered free of rinderpest and FMD. Section 94.11 lists regions of the world considered free of rinderpest and FMD but from which the importation of meat and other animal products into the United States is subject to additional restrictions because of those regions' proximity to or trading relationships with FMD-affected regions. Japan has been listed in § 94.11 as one of the regions from which meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine are subject to additional restrictions.
On April 20, 2010, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries of Japan reported an outbreak of FMD in that country to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). In response, APHIS administratively issued temporary restrictions on commodities from Japan that could harbor FMD virus. Since that date, Japan has reported FMD on a total of 292 premises. No new cases have been diagnosed since July 4, 2010. We are amending the regulations in § 94.1(a)(1) to remove Japan from the list of regions free of rinderpest and FMD and are amending the regulations in § 94.1(a)(3) to add Japan to the list of regions free of rinderpest. We are also amending the regulations in § 94.11 to remove Japan from the list of regions considered free of rinderpest and FMD but from which the importation of meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine into the United States is subject to additional restrictions.
Additionally, we are making a nonsubstantive change to § 94.27 to clarify our intent regarding that section. The provisions of § 94.27 allow the importation from Japan of whole cuts of boneless beef derived from cattle that meet specified conditions to mitigate the risk of introducing bovine
Although we are removing Japan from the list of regions considered free of rinderpest and FMD, we recognize that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries of Japan has responded to the detection of FMD by imposing restrictions on the movement of ruminants, swine, and ruminant and swine products from FMD-affected areas; by conducting heightened surveillance activities; and by initiating measures to eradicate the disease. As noted above, no new cases of FMD have been diagnosed in Japan since July 4, 2010. We intend to reassess this situation at a future date in accordance with the standards of the OIE. As part of that reassessment process, we will consider all comments received on this interim rule. The future reassessment will determine whether we can restore Japan to the list of regions in which FMD is not known to exist.
This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the introduction of FMD into the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (
This interim rule is subject to Executive Order 12866. However, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. This interim rule is not expected to have an immediate or significant economic impact on small entities producing beef and swine products in the United States. As cattle and swine in Japan are culled due to the FMD outbreak there and supplies of beef and pork products become tighter in Japan, there may be an increase in the demand for U.S. beef and pork products. With regard to imports, beef imported from Japan is a unique product that serves a high-priced specialty market. Although entities that purchase beef from Japan will be affected by this rule, farms in the United States that raise cattle for this type of beef may benefit from the prohibition on imports of beef from Japan. We invite comment on our full economic analysis, which is posted with this interim rule on the Regulations.gov Web site (
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has retroactive effect to April 20, 2010; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781–7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Immediate final rule.
The State of New Mexico has applied to the EPA for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action. The EPA is publishing this
This final authorization will become effective on December 27, 2010 unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by November 24, 2010. If the EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Alima Patterson Region 6 Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, (214) 665–8533), EPA Region 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, and e-mail address
States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266–268, 270, 273, and 279.
We conclude that New Mexico's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant New Mexico final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. New Mexico has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in New Mexico including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
The effect of this decision is that a facility in New Mexico subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. New Mexico has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether New Mexico has taken its own actions.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which New Mexico is being authorized by today's action are already effective under State law, and are not changed by today's action.
The EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's
If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the
The State of New Mexico initially received final authorization on January 25, 1985 (50 FR 1515) to implement its base hazardous waste management program. New Mexico received authorization for revisions to its program on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4604) effective April 10, 1990; March 19, 1990 (55 FR 10076); July 11, 1990 (55 FR 28397) effective July 25, 1990; October 5, 1992 (57 FR 45717) effective December 4, 1992; June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29734) effective August 23, 1994; October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51122) effective December 21, 1994; April 25, 1995 (60 FR 20238) effective July 10, 1995; (61 FR 2450) January 2, 1996; December 23, 1996 (61 FR 67474) effective March 10, 1997 and August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42140) effective October 9, 2001 and (72 FR 46165) effective October 16, 2007. The authorized New Mexico RCRA program was incorporated by reference to the CFR, effective December 13, 1993 (58 FR 52677); November 18, 1996 (61 FR 49265); July 13, 1998 (63 FR 23221); effective October 27, 2003, and March 25, 2009, (74 FR 12625); effective May 26, 2009. On May 21, 2009 New Mexico submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization of its program revision in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.
New Mexico statutes provide authority for the NMED to administer the provisions of the State Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP). The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Act (EIA), NMSA 1978, Sections 74–1–1 through 74–1–14 and the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act (HWA) provide this authority. No amendments have been made to the EIA or HWA that affect the ability of the NMED to administer the HWMP. The NMED is the sole agency responsible for the HWMP.
The NMED petitioned the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) to amend the HWMR, 20.4.1 for the EPA Federal rules promulgated from July 1, 2002, through July 1, 2008. The EIB adopted the amendments to the Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (HWMR) on November 3, 2008, and these amendments became permanent rules effective March 1, 2009.
Thus, 20.4.1 NMAC provides equivalent and no less stringent authority than the adoption of Federal RCRA Subtitle C program in effect through July 1, 2008. This is the version that is referred to in the Attorney General's Statement and Certification submitted with this program revision. The 20 NMAC 4.1 became effective on March 1, 2009. New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMAC) 1978 Sections 74–4–4A(1) and 74–4–4F (2002) provides New Mexico with authority to adopt Federal regulations by reference with exceptions to federal rules that are not delegated to the State of New Mexico. Since the latest authorization the scope, structure, coverage, and processes have not materially changed.
New Mexico, through the HWMR, has incorporated by reference the following federal RCRA regulations as amended through July 1, 2008: 40 CFR parts 260–270, 40 CFR part 270; 40 CFR part 273; and 40 CFR part 279 with the exception of 40 CFR 260.1(b)(6), 260.20, 260.22, 260.30, 260.31, 260.32, 260.33, 263.20(e), 264.1(f), 264.149, 264.150, 264.301(l), 264.1030(d), 264.1050(g), 264.1080(e), 264.1080(f), 264.1080(g), 265.1(c)(4), 265.149, 265.150, 265.1030(c), 265.1050(f), 265.1080(e), 265.1080(f), 265.1080(g); 268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), 268.44(a) through (g). New Mexico has incorporated by reference 40 CFR part 124, sections 124.31, 124.32, and 124.33 with exception to 40 CFR parts 124.1 and 124.2. Also, it has adopted regulations at 20.4.1.901 NMAC, Permitting Procedures, that are equivalent to and no less stringent than the procedures of 40 CFR part 124 and required by 40 CFR 271.14.
The State of New Mexico has added regulations 20.4.1.1001.A(1), A(3), & .D requirements for aerosol cans as universal waste. An EPA memo dated February 13, 1997 (from Mike Shapiro to Senior RCRA Policy Managers in the EPA Regions), indicates that States that are already authorized for the universal waste rule may add additional wastes that meet the criteria for universal waste to their program. Such state-only wastes may be recognized as part of the State's authorized program; therefore, EPA Region 6 has determined that the State's aerosol can provisions can be recognized as part of the State's authorized program.
20.4.1.1001.C—New Mexico has adopted an extensive revision to their universal waste program which would allow the intentional breaking and crushing of universal waste lamps in order to reduce their volume to facilitate management or transport to destination facilities. The State's regulations also include specific requirements with which the regulated community must comply. Further analysis will be performed to determine if the breaking and crushing of universal waste lamps will be authorized as part of the State's authorized program. Therefore, the EPA has determined that these requirements are not part of the State's authorized program. The lamp crushing provisions are excluded from this authorization.
Performance Track (Non-HSWA) (Revision Checklist 204; 69 FR 21737, 4/24/04, as amended at 69 FR 62217, 10/24/04). In New Mexico's Program Revision Application package for RCRA Clusters XIII through XVIII, the State indicates that it is seeking authorization for the Performance Track program, as addressed by Revision Checklist 204. However, on March 16, 2009, EPA announced its intention to halt and review the National Performance Track Program. Therefore, EPA Region 6 has decided to exclude this rule from this authorization document. The EPA is also excluding from this authorization document, the specific Performance Track provisions addressed by the Burden Reduction Initiative Rule (71 FR 16862; 04/04/06; Revision Checklist 213).
On May 21, 2009, New Mexico submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that New Mexico's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant the State of New Mexico Final authorization for the following changes: The State of New Mexico's program revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Federal Hazardous Waste revisions promulgated from July 1, 2002 through July 1, 2008 (RCRA Clusters XIII–XVIII). The State of New Mexico requirements are included in a chart with this document.
The State of New Mexico more stringent regulations are at Sections 20.4.1.701 and 20.4.1.902. The State's more stringent regulations corresponds to Federal regulations 40 CFR 266.102(e)(10) and 270.14(a). There are no broader in scope provisions in this authorization document.
New Mexico will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits, which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which New Mexico is not yet authorized.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272; subpart GG for this authorization of New Mexico's program changes until a later date. In this authorization application the EPA is not codifying the rules documented in this
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35 01
This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective December 27, 2010.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Interim rule with request for comments.
DoD is issuing an interim rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 3504 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Section 3504 addresses requirements that apply to riding gang members and DoD-exempted individuals who perform work on U.S.-flag vessels under DoD contracts for transportation services. Section 3504 amended section 1018 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2007–D002, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check
Ms. Mary Overstreet, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B855, Washington, DC 20301–3060. Telephone 703–602–0311; facsimile 703–602–0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2007–D002.
This interim rule implements section 3504 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110–417). Section 3504 amended section 1018 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109–364).
Section 3504 addresses requirements that apply to riding gang members and DoD-exempted individuals who perform work on U.S.-flag vessels under DoD contracts for transportation services
U.S. law requires crews of predominantly U.S. citizens aboard U.S.-flag vessels. For many years, foreign nationals have been utilized on U.S.-flag vessels as members of “riding gangs” who perform work beyond standard vessel maintenance and repair while ships are underway. In 2006, Congress prohibited the use of such foreign riding personnel on board vessels that are under contract with the DoD unless the DoD complied with certain limitations. (The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109–241.) The exceptions provided to DoD in 2006 did not match those applicable to other U.S.-flag vessels. The Defense Authorization Act of FY 2009 made it clear that the exceptions available to DoD are complete exemptions both from the DoD-specific riding gang limitations and those generally applicable to U.S.-flag vessels.
Contracting officers are encouraged to apply this rule to the maximum extent practicable to existing contracts, consistent with FAR 1.108(d).
This rule was subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603. A copy of the analysis may be obtained from the point of contact specified herein. The analysis is summarized as follows:
The objective of the rule is to provide authorization, restrictions, and exemptions for the use of riding gang members on U.S.-flag vessels under charter or contract to DoD for the carriage of DoD cargo. The requirements of the rule will apply to entities interested in receiving DoD contracts for carriage of DoD cargo.
The rule requires the contractor to ensure each riding gang member holds a valid U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document issued under 46 U.S.C. chapter 73, or a transportation security card issued under section 70105 of such title. Any individual who is exempt from these requirements must pass a DoD background check before going aboard the vessel. With regard to these exempt individuals, the contractor shall submit the name and other necessary identifying information for a background check to the approving official specified in the contract.
DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties on the impact of this rule on small entities. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2007–D002) in correspondence.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense (DoD) that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule without prior opportunity for public comments. This action is necessary to ensure contracts are compliant with section 3504 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110–417), which requires contractors to ensure that each riding gang member holds a valid U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document issued under 46 U.S.C. chapter 73, or a transportation security card issued under section 70105 of such title. Implementing language must be published as quickly as possible to ensure that screening and security requirements are met for riding gang members who perform work on U.S.-flag vessels under DoD contracts for transportation services documented under chapter 121, title 46 U.S.C. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 418b, DoD will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(f) * * *
(xv) Use the clause at 252.247–7027, Riding Gang Member Requirements, as prescribed in 247.574(f).
(a) Implements—
(1) The Cargo Preference Act of 1904 (“the 1904 Act”), 10 U.S.C. 2631, which applies to the ocean transportation of cargo owned by, or destined for use by, DoD;
(2) Section 1017 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109–364), which requires consideration, in solicitations requiring a covered vessel, of the extent to which offerors have had overhaul, repair, and maintenance work performed in shipyards located in the United States or Guam; and
(3) Section 3504 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110–417), which addresses requirements that apply to riding gang members and DoD-exempted individuals (see 252.247–7027(c)) who perform work on U.S.-flag vessels under DoD contracts for transportation services documented under chapter 121, title 46 U.S.C.
(e) In accordance with section 3504 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110–417), DoD may not award, renew or extend, or exercise an option under a charter of, or contract for carriage of cargo by, a U.S.-flag vessel documented under chapter 121 of title 46 U.S.C., unless the contract contains the clause at 252.247–7027.
(f) Use the clause at 252.247–7027, Riding Gang Member Requirements, in solicitations and contracts for the charter of, or contract for carriage of cargo by, a U.S.-flag vessel documented under chapter 121 of title 46 U.S.C.
As prescribed in 247.574(f), use the following clause:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) An individual is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b) of this clause and shall not be treated as a riding gang member for the purposes of section 8106 of title 46, if that individual is on a vessel for purposes other than engaging in the operation or maintenance of the vessel and is—
(i) One of the personnel who accompanies, supervises, guards, or maintains unit equipment aboard a ship, commonly referred to as supercargo personnel;
(ii) One of the force protection personnel of the vessel;
(iii) A specialized repair technician; or
(iv) An individual who is otherwise required by the Secretary of Defense or designee to be aboard the vessel.
(2) Any individual who is exempt under paragraph (c)(1) of this clause must pass a DoD background check before going aboard the vessel. With regard to these exempt individuals, the Contractor shall submit the name and other necessary identifying information for a background check to the approving official specified in the contract. The head of the contracting activity may waive this requirement if the individual possesses a valid U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document issued under 46 U.S.C., chapter 73, or a transportation security card issued under section 70105 of such title.
(3) An individual exempted under paragraph (c)(1) of this clause is not treated as a riding gang member and shall not be counted as an individual in addition to the crew for the purposes of 46 U.S.C. 3304.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Interim rule with request for comments.
This interim rule amends the Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to conform to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) by providing Department of Defense (DoD)-specific policy and procedures related to the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). The FAR has been revised to reflect use of the eSRS, rather than Standard Form 294—Subcontract Report for Individual Contracts, and Standard Form 295—Summary Subcontract Report, for submission of small business subcontract reports.
You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2009–D002, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
All comments received will be posted to
Ms. Cassandra R. Freeman, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B855, Washington, DC 20301–3060, Telephone 703–602–8383; facsimile(703)602–0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2009–D002.
This DFARS case is the companion case to FAR Case 2005–040 Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System. This DFARS interim rule amends sections 219.708 and 252.219 to provide DoD-specific procedures and policies related to DoD's implementation of eSRS.
DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 DFARS Case 2009–D002 in correspondence.
This interim rule does not impose any new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. The FAR already requires the use of eSRS for submission of subcontracting reports. This interim rule provides to DoD contractors the DoD-specific policies and procedures that they must follow in order to be able to submit subcontract reports using eSRS, as required by the FAR.
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(b)(1)(A) Use the clause at 252.219–7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts)—
(B) In contracts with contractors that have comprehensive subcontracting plans approved under the test program described in 219.702, use the clause at 252.219–7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), instead of the clauses at 252.219–7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), and FAR 52.219–9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Include —
As prescribed in 219.708(b)(1)(A)
This clause supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.219–9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, clause of this contract.
(a)
(b) Except for company or division-wide commercial items subcontracting plans, the term “small disadvantaged business,” when used in the FAR 52.219–9 clause, includes historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions, in addition to small disadvantaged business concerns.
(c) Work under the contract or its subcontracts shall be credited toward meeting the small disadvantaged business concern goal required by paragraph (d) of the FAR 52.219–9 clause when:
(1) It is performed on Indian lands or in joint venture with an Indian Tribe or a Tribally-owned corporation, and
(2) It meets the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2323a.
(d) Subcontracts awarded to workshops approved by the Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled (41 U.S.C. 46–48), may be counted toward the Contractor's small business subcontracting goal.
(e) A mentor firm, under the Pilot Mentor-Protege Program established under Section 831 of Public Law 101–510, as amended, may count toward its small disadvantaged business goal, subcontracts awarded—
(1) Protege firms which are qualified organizations employing the severely handicapped; and
(2) Former protege firms that meet the criteria in Section 831(g)(4) of Public Law 101–510.
(f) The master plan is approval by the Contractor's cognizant contract administration activity.
(g) In those subcontracting plans which specifically identify small businesses, the Contractor shall notify the Administrative Contracting Officer of any substitutions of firms that are not small business firms, for the small business firms specifically identified in the subcontracting plan. Notifications shall be in writing and shall occur within a reasonable period of time after award of the subcontract. Contractor-specified formats shall be acceptable.
(h)(1) For DoD, the Contractor shall submit reports in eSRS as follows:
(i) The Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) shall be submitted to the contracting officer at the procuring contracting office, even when contract administration has been delegated to the Defense Contract Management Agency.
(ii) An SSR for other than a commercial subcontracting plan, or construction and related maintenance repair contracts, shall be submitted in eSRS to the department or agency within DoD that administers the majority of the Contractor's individual subcontracting plans. An example would be Defense Finance and Accounting Service or Missile Defense Agency.
(2) For DoD, the authority to acknowledge receipt or reject reports in eSRS is as follows:
(i) The authority to acknowledge receipt or reject the ISR resides with the contracting officer who receives it, as described in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this clause.
(ii) Except as provided in (h)(2)(iii), the authority to acknowledge receipt or reject SSRs in eSRS resides with the SSR Coordinator at the department or agency that administers the majority of the Contractor's individual subcontracting plans.
(iii) The authority to acknowledge receipt or reject SSRs for construction and related maintenance and repair contracts resides with the SSR Coordinator for each department or agency.
(iv) The authority to acknowledge receipt or reject the Year-End Supplementary Report for Small Disadvantaged Businesses resides with the SSR Coordinator who acknowledges receipt or rejects the SSR.
(v) If the Contractor submits the Small Disadvantaged Business Participation report using eSRS, the authority to acknowledge receipt or reject this report in eSRS resides with the contracting officer who acknowledges receipt or rejects the ISR.
As prescribed in
(h)(1)(i) The Standard Form 294 Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions on that form; paragraph (h)(2)(i) is inapplicable.
As prescribed in 219.708(b)(1)(B), use the following clause:
(a)
(b) The Offeror's comprehensive small business subcontracting plan and its successors, which are authorized by and approved under the test program of Section 834 of Pub. L. 101–189, as amended, shall be included in and made a part of the resultant contract. Upon expulsion from the test program or expiration of the test program, the Contractor shall negotiate an individual subcontracting plan for all future contracts that meet the requirements of Section 211 of Public Law 95–507.
(c) The Contractor shall—
(1) Ensure that subcontractors with subcontracting plans agree to submit an Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) and/or Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS);
(2) Provide its contract number, its DUNS number, and the e-mail address of the Contractor's official responsible for acknowledging or rejecting the ISR to all first-tier subcontractors, who will be required to submit ISRs, so they can enter this information into the eSRS when submitting their reports;
(3) Require that each subcontractor with a subcontracting plan provide the prime contract number, its own DUNS number, and the e-mail address of the subcontractor's official responsible for acknowledging or rejecting the ISRs to its subcontractors with subcontracting plans who will be required to submit ISRs; and
(4) Acknowledge receipt or reject all ISRs submitted by its subcontractors using eSRS.
(d) The Contractor shall submit SSRs using eSRS at
(1) This report may be submitted on a corporate, company or subdivision (
(2) This report encompasses all subcontracting under prime contracts and subcontracts with the Department of Defense, regardless of the dollar value of the subcontracts, and is based on the negotiated comprehensive subcontracting plan.
(3) The Contractor shall submit the report semi-annually for the six months ending March 31 and the twelve months ending September 30. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each reporting period.
(4) The authority to receipt or reject the SSR resides with the Comprehensive Subcontracting Program Division, the Defense Contract Management Agency Small Business Center.
(e) All reports submitted at the close of each fiscal year shall include a Year-End Supplementary Report for Small Disadvantaged Businesses. The report shall include subcontract awards, in whole dollars, to small disadvantaged business concerns by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Industry Subsector. If the data are not available when the year-end SSR is submitted, the prime Contractor and/or subcontractor shall submit the Year-End Supplementary Report for Small Disadvantaged Businesses within 90 days of submitting the year-end SSR. The authority to acknowledge receipt or reject the Year End Report resides with the Comprehensive Subcontracting Program Division, the Defense Contract Management Agency Small Business Center.
(f) The failure of the Contractor or subcontractor to comply in good faith with the clause of this contract entitled “Utilization of Small Business Concerns,” or an approved plan required by this clause, shall be a material breach of the contract.
(g) The Contractor shall include, in contracts that offer subcontracting possibilities, are expected to exceed $550,000 ($1,000,000 for construction of any public facility), and are required to include the clause at 52.219–8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns—
(1) FAR 52.219–9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and 252.219–7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), when the Contracting Officer has included these clauses in the contract for purposes of flowdown to subcontractors;
(2) 52.219–9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan with its Alternate III and 252.219–7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), with its Alternate I, when the Contracting Officer has included these clauses in the contract for flowdown to subcontractors to allow for submission of SF 294s in lieu of ISRs; or
(3) 252.219–7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), in subcontracts with subcontractors that participate in the test program described in DFARS 219.702.
(b) * * *
(7) The total dollar amount and percentage of subcontracts that the company awarded to all SDB, women-owned small business, HUBZone small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business firms under DoD contracts and other Federal agency contracts during the 2 preceding fiscal years. (Show DoD subcontract awards separately.) If the company presently is required to submit a Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) or previously submitted the Standard Form (SF) 295, the request must include copies of the final reports for the 2 preceding fiscal years.
(a) Amounts credited toward applicable subcontracting goal(s) for unreimbursed costs under the Program must be separately identified on the appropriate ISR, SSR or SF 294 reports from the amounts credited toward the goal(s) resulting from the award of actual subcontracts to protege firms. The combination of the two must equal the mentor firm's overall accomplishment toward the applicable goal(s).
(c) * * *
(3) Dollars credited, if any, toward applicable subcontracting goals as a result of developmental assistance provided to the protege and a copy of the ISR or SF 294 and/or SSR for each contract where developmental assistance was credited.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule; correction.
The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in the
Rolaine Bancroft, Attorney-Advisor, in the Office of Rulemaking, at (202) 551–3430, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–3628 or, with respect to proposed Rule 17g–7, Joseph I. Levinson, Special Counsel, at (202) 551–5598; Division of Trading and Markets, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–3628.
In the
On page 62719, in footnote 7 in the first column, two lines from the bottom;
On page 62735, in the first column, two lines from the top;
On page 62736, in the first column, thirty-one lines from the top;
On page 62736, in the first column, eight lines from the bottom;
On page 62736, in the first column, three lines from the bottom;
On page 62736, in the second column, two lines from the top; and
On page 62736, in the second column, six lines from the top.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The State of New Mexico has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final Authorization to the State of New Mexico. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Send your written comments by November 24, 2010.
Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the materials submitted by the State of New Mexico during normal business hours at the following locations: New Mexico Environment Department, 2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Building 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505–6303, phone number (505) 476–6035 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, phone number (214) 665–8533, comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the detailed instructions in the
Alima Patterson (214) 665–8533.
For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes quotas for the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries for 2011, 2012, and 2013. Regulations governing these fisheries require NMFS to publish the proposed quota specifications for the 2011–2013 fishing years and seek public comment on such proposed measures. The intent of this action is to propose allowable harvest levels of Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs from the Exclusive Economic Zone to prevent overfishing and to allow harvesting of optimum yield (OY).
Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on November 24, 2010.
Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available from Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State St., Dover, DE 19901. A copy of the EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648–XY27, by any one of the following methods:
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Anna Macan, Fishery Management Specialist, 978–281–9165.
The fishery management plan (FMP) for Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs requires that NMFS, in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), specify quotas for surfclam and ocean quahog for a 3-year period, with an annual review, from a range that represents the OY for each fishery. It is the policy of the Council that the levels selected allow sustainable fishing to continue at that level for at least 10 years for surfclams, and 30 years for ocean quahogs. In addition to this constraint, the Council policy also considers the economic impacts of the quotas. Regulations implementing Amendment 10 to the FMP (63 FR 27481, May 19, 1998) added Maine ocean quahogs (locally known as Maine mahogany quahogs) to the management unit, and provided for a small artisanal fishery for ocean quahogs in the waters north of 43°50′ N. lat., with an annual quota within a range of 17,000 to 100,000 Maine bu (5,991 to 35,240 hL). As specified in Amendment 10, the Maine mahogany ocean quahog quota is allocated separately from the quota specified for the ocean quahog fishery. Regulations implementing Amendment 13 to the FMP (68 FR 69970, December 16, 2003) established the ability to set multi-year quotas. An evaluation, in the form of an annual quota recommendation, is conducted by the Council every year to determine if the multi-year quota specifications remains appropriate. The fishing quotas must be in compliance with overfishing definitions for each species. In recommending these quotas, the Council considered the most recent stock assessments, data reported by harvesters and processors, and other relevant information concerning exploitable biomass and spawning biomass, fishing mortality rates, stock recruitment, projected fishing effort and catches, and areas closed to fishing.
In June 2010, the Council voted to recommend maintaining the 2010 quota levels of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) for the ocean quahog fishery, 3.400 million bu (181 million L) for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, and 100,000 Maine bu (35,240 hL) for the Maine ocean quahog fishery for 2011–2013. The proposed quotas for the 2011–2013 Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery are shown in the table below. The Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog quotas are specified in “industry” bu of 53.24 L per bu, while the Maine ocean quahog quota is specified in “Maine” bu of 35.24 L per bu. Because Maine ocean quahogs are the same species as ocean quahogs, both fisheries are assessed under the same ocean quahog overfishing definition. When the two quota amounts (ocean quahog and Maine ocean quahog) are added, the total allowable harvest is still lower than the level that would result in overfishing for the entire stock.
The proposed 2011–2013 status quo surfclam quota was developed after reviewing the results of the Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) 49 for Atlantic surfclam, released to the public in February 2010. The surfclam quota recommendation is consistent with the SAW 49 finding that the Atlantic surfclam stock is not overfished, nor is overfishing occurring. Estimated fishable stock biomass in 2008 was above the management target, and fishing mortality was below the management threshold. Although recruitment, growth rate, and biomass have continued to decline in the southern region (NJ and Delmarva),
The proposed 2011–2013 quota for ocean quahogs also reflects the status quo quota of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) in 2010. SAW 48, released to the public in August 2009, found that the ocean quahog stock is not overfished, nor is overfishing occurring. Estimated fishable biomass in 2008 was above the management target, and estimated fishing mortality was significantly below the target level. Fishing mortality is not expected to reach the threshold if the proposed quota is harvested each of the 3 years. Ocean quahog is an unproductive stock that is being fished down from its pre-fishery level; however, after several decades of relatively low fishing mortality, the stock is still above the biomass target reference points. In fact, the stock biomass is still at 81 percent of the pre-fishing level. Based on this information, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, to maintain the status quo quota of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) for 2011–2013. This quota level may be above current market demand, but allows for market growth, should conditions change.
The proposed 2011–2013 quota for Maine ocean quahogs is the status quo level of 100,000 Maine bu (35,240 hL). In 2008, the State of Maine completed a stock assessment of the resource within the Maine Mahogany Quahog Zone. This assessment was peer-reviewed as part of SAW 48. The findings of the Maine quahog survey did not change the status of the entire ocean quahog resource. The proposed quota represents the maximum allowable quota under the FMP.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) has been prepared, which describes the economic impacts that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the IRFA is included in this section. The complete IRFA and regulatory impact review is available from the Council (
This action proposes fishing quotas for Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs for 2011–2013. The Council analyzed four quota alternatives for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, five alternatives for the ocean quahog fishery, and four alternatives for the Maine ocean quahog fishery. Each of the alternative sets included the proposed alternative and a “no action” alternative. The three proposed quotas for 2011–2013 are 5.333 million bu (284 million L) for the ocean quahog fishery, 3.400 million bu (181 million L) for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, and 100,000 Maine bu (35,240 hL) for the Maine ocean quahog fishery.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small commercial fishing entity as a firm with gross annual receipts not exceeding $4 million. In 2009, a total of 43 vessels reported harvesting surfclams and/or ocean quahogs from Federal waters under the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) system. In addition, 19 vessels participated in the limited access Maine ocean quahog fishery, for a total of 62 participants in the 2009 fisheries. Average 2009 gross income from surfclam IFQ trips was $833,333 per vessel, and from ocean quahog IFQ trips was $1,533,333 per vessel. The Maine ocean quahog fishery reported an average value of $105,263 per vessel. Each vessel in this analysis is treated as a single entity for purposes of size determination and impact assessment. All 62 commercial fishing entities fall below the SBA size threshold for small commercial fishing entities.
In addition to the active vessels that participate in the fishery there are 45 ocean quahog quota IFQ allocation holders, 57 surfclam allocation holders, and 40 Federal limited access Maine mahogany quahog permit holders. An allocation holder may choose to fish or lease his or her quota allocation.
The proposed quotas for 2011–2013 reflect the same quota levels set for 2008–2010. Therefore, it is not expected that there will be any different economic impacts beyond status quo resulting from the proposed quota level. Leaving the ocean quahog quota at the harvest level of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) is not expected to constrain the fishery. In fact, actual ocean quahog landings for 2008 and 2009 were approximately 65 percent of the available quota. The total 2010 harvest is expected to be similar to recent years (as of September 30, 2010, only 47.6 percent of the quota had been harvested, a level slightly less than on this date in 2009). The surfclam quota is proposed to be set to the maximum allowed under the FMP.
In contrast to the ocean quahog harvest, the surfclam fishery has harvested over 80 percent of the available quota each year since 2005, except for 2009, where 69 percent of the quota was landed. As of September 30, 2010, only 47.7 percent of the quota has been harvested for FY 2010, a level slightly less than on this date in 2009.
The Maine ocean quahog quota is proposed to be set at the maximum allowed under the FMP (100,000 Maine bu; 35,240 hL). It is anticipated that by maintaining the status quo quota level for the next 3 years, the fishing industry will benefit from the stability of product demand from the seafood processors and being able to predict future fishery performance based on past performance from the last 3 years.
The Council analyzed four alternatives for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, five alternatives for the ocean quahog fishery, and four alternatives for the Maine ocean quahog fishery. Each of the alternative sets included the proposed alternative and a “no action” alternative. The selection of “no action” alternative would result in no quotas being established, a closure of the fishery, and is contrary to the FMP. Based on 2009 ex-vessel prices, the result of no Federal surfclam or ocean quahog harvests in 2011 would be a loss of $30 million to the Federal surfclam fishery, $23 million to the ocean quahog fishery, and $2 million to the Maine ocean quahog fishery, for a total loss of $55 million. The viable alternatives to the proposed quotas for ocean quahog
The alternatives to the proposed surfclam quotas that are permissible under the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act include a 45.6-percent decrease from the status quo and a 4.4-percent decrease from the status quo; therefore, there are no significant alternatives that would reduce economic impacts on the regulated entities.
The alternatives to the proposed Maine ocean quahog quota that are permissible under the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act include a 50-percent decrease from the status quo and a 10-percent decrease from the status quo; therefore, there are no significant alternatives that would reduce economic impacts on the regulated entities.
This proposed rule would not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. Therefore, the costs of compliance would remain unchanged.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Local Agency Directory Report which lists the names and addresses of all WIC local agencies.
Comments on this notice must be received by December 27, 2010.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Debra Whitford, Director, Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 520, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go 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: Joan Carroll, (703) 305–2729.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Lassen County Resource Advsiory will meet in Susanville, CA. 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 business meeting is in preparation for the next funding cycle.
The meeting will be held November 10, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 12 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Lassen National Forest Supervisor's Office in the Caribou Conference Room at 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA.
Heidi Perry, Public Affairs Officer for the Lassen National Forest at 530–252–6604 or
The meeting is open to the public.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Craig, Alaska, November 5, 2010. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss potential projects under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2008.
The meeting will be held November 5, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Craig Ranger District 504 9th Street, Craig, Alaska. Send written comments to Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee, c/o District Ranger, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 500, Craig, AK 99921, or electronically to Rebecca Sakraida, RAC Coordinator at
Rebecca Sakraida, RAC Coordinator Craig Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, (907) 826–1601.
The meeting is open to the public.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Illinois International Port District, grantee of FTZ 22, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the pharmaceutical and biological intravenous (I.V.) product manufacturing facility of Baxter Healthcare Corporation (Baxter), located near Round Lake (Lake County), Illinois. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on October 15, 2010.
The Baxter facility (500 manufacturing employees, approximately 154 acres/1,427,047 square feet (303,831 manufacturing square feet)) is located at 25212 W. Illinois Route 120, near Round Lake, Illinois. Activity to be conducted under FTZ procedures would include manufacturing, warehousing and distribution of pre-mixed, filled pharmaceutical and biological I.V. units (up to 70 million units annually) for export and the domestic market. Baxter is requesting to use zone procedures for the foreign-origin laminated film used to make the I.V. bags (HTSUS 3920.10, duty rate: 4.2%), representing some 7.5 percent of the finished product's value.
FTZ procedures could exempt Baxter from customs duty payments on the foreign laminated film used in export production (up to some 7 percent of annual shipments). On its domestic sales, Baxter would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to the finished pharmaceutical and biological I.V. products (duty-free) for the foreign input noted above. FTZ designation may further allow Baxter to realize logistical benefits through the use of weekly customs entry and direct delivery procedures. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Diane Finver of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 27, 2010. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 10, 2011.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, 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
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (“Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order.
Alexis Polovina, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3927.
On May 3, 2010, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked.
On September 20, 2010, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable future.
Imports covered by the order are shipments of potassium permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, technical, and pharmaceutical grades. Potassium permanganate is currently classifiable under item 2841.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
As a result of these determinations by the Department and the ITC that
This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Notice of issuance of an amended export trade certificate of review to Florida Citrus Exports L.C. (“FCE”) (Application #94–4A007).
The U.S. Department of Commerce issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to Florida Citrus Exports L.C. on October 13, 2010. The Certificate has now been amended nine times. The previous amendment was issued to FCE on May 8, 2000, and a notice of its issuance was published in the
Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Competition and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482–5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2010).
The Office of Competition and Economic Analysis (“OCEA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the
1. Add the following new Members of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): Riverfront Packing Co. LLC, Vero Beach, FL; and Indian River Exchange Packers, Inc., Vero Beach, FL.
2. Delete the following Members from FCE's Certificate: Dole Citrus, Vero Beach, FL; Harbor Island Citrus Inc., Vero Beach, FL; and Minton Sun, Inc. Ft. Pierce, FL.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Austin Redington, 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) 482–1664.
On March 30, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India covering the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an antidumping duty order for which a review is requested and issue the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.
Due to the complexity of the issues in this case, the Department requires additional time to review and analyze the respondent's sales and cost information and to issue supplemental questionnaires. In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iii), the Department plans to conduct verification in response to Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s (“Venus”) request for revocation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Elfi Blum, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0197.
On March 2, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a new shipper review under the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from India for the period July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009.
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and section 351.214(i)(1) of the Department's regulations require the Department to issue the preliminary results of review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated, and final results of the review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. However, if the Department concludes that a new shipper review is extraordinarily complicated, section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and section 351.214(i)(2) of the Department's regulations allow the Department to extend the 180-day period to 300 days, and to extend the 90-day period to 150 days. The Department determines that this new shipper review involves extraordinarily complicated issues pertaining to the bona fides of the new shipper, including the examination of importer and customer information. The Department also must address certain complicated methodological issues pertaining to SRF Limited's reported sales data. Because of these issues, the Department must issue another supplemental questionnaire to SRF Limited, provide SRF Limited with time to respond, and analyze SRF Limited's response.
Therefore, the Department is extending the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of this new shipper review by an additional total of 55 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). Accordingly, the deadline for the completion of the preliminary results is now no later than December 16, 2010.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 21, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results in the 2008–2009 antidumping duty administrative review of magnesium metal from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
Laurel LaCivita, Sergio Balbontin, Eve Wang, or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4243, (202) 482–6478, (202) 482–6231 and (202) 482–0414, respectively.
On April 21, 2010, the Department published its
On May 14, 2010, all parties (Petitioner and TMI) submitted publicly available surrogate value data to value TMI's factors of production. On May 24, parties submitted rebuttal comments addressing the May 14, 2010 submissions. On July 14, 2010, the Department re-opened the record to place additional wage rate information on the record for consideration in the final results, and requested parties to provide comments on that data in their case and rebuttal briefs.
We received the case briefs from Petitioner and TMI on July 22, 2010, and rebuttal briefs on July 27, 2010. In addition, on August 26, 2010, TMI provided comments on the Department's July 14, 2010, wage rate information. On August 30, 2010, Petitioner provided rebuttal comments to TMI's wage rate comment.
On August 18, 2010, the Department extended the deadline for the final
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Memorandum from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding, Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2008–2009 Administrative Review, dated October 18, 2010 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Main Commerce Building, Room 7046, and is also accessible on the Web at
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we verified the information submitted by TMI for use in our final results of review.
The POR is April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009.
The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.
The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into rasping, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The scope of this order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department has made certain changes in the margin calculation. For the final results, the Department has made the following changes:
• We revised our determination of the surrogate financial ratios to include the financial statements of Gujarat Foils Ltd. with those of Sudal Industries, Ltd., which we used in the preliminary results of review.
• We revised the surrogate wage rate.
• We revised the surrogate value for brokerage and handling.
We determine the weighted-average dumping margin for TMI for the period April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009, to be 0.00 percent.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI, the cash deposit rate will be 0.00 percent, as listed above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 141.49 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), 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 which is subject to sanction.
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of vendor to provide fishing year 2011 cage tags.
NMFS informs surfclam and ocean quahog individual transferable quota (ITQ) allocation holders that they will be required to purchase their fishing year 2011 cage tags from the National Band and Tag Company. The intent of this notice is to comply with regulations for the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries and to promote efficient distribution of cage tags.
Written inquiries may be sent to: Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930–2298.
Anna Macan, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281–9165; fax (978) 281–9135.
The Federal Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery regulations at 50 CFR 648.75(b) authorize the Regional Administrator of the Northeast Region, NMFS, to specify in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) and its Administrative Committee will hold meetings.
The meetings will be held on December 14–15, 2010. The Council will convene on Tuesday, December 14, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and the Administrative Committee will meet from 5:15 p.m. to 6 p.m. They will reconvene on Wednesday, December 15, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meetings will be held at the El Conquistador Resort, 1000 El Conquistador Avenue, Las Croabas, Fajardo, Puerto Rico 00738.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1920, telephone: (787) 766–5926.
The Council will hold its 136th regular Council Meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:
• Call to Order.
• Adoption of Agenda.
• Consideration of the 135th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcription.
• Executive Director's Report.
• ACLs/AMs Report/Discussion.
• Trap Reduction Program Update—Anthony Iarocci/Tony Blanchard.
• Catch Share Program Report.
• Second ACL Amendment—Other Species.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (5 MINUTES PRESENTATIONS).
• Administrative Committee Meeting
• Second ACLs Amendment—Other Species (cont.).
• EFH Document.
• Queen Conch Survey.
• Benthic Habitats and Associated Fish Communities at El Seco Reef Southeast Vieques—Dr. Jorge R. García-Sais.
• Highly Migratory Species Presentation.
• NOAA Recreational Fisheries Update—Russell Dunn.
• Enforcement Reports.
• Administrative Committee Recommendations.
• Meetings Attended by Council Members and Staff.
• Public Comment Period (5-Minutes Presentations).
• Other Business.
• Next Council Meeting.
The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. To further accommodate discussion and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.
The meetings are open to the public, and will be conducted in English. However, simultaneous translation (English/Spanish) will be provided. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be subjects for formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice, and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918–1920, telephone (787) 766–5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 27, 2010, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon quality steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Brazil. The review covers four producers/exporters of hot-rolled steel from Brazil, all mandatory respondents. Based on the withdrawal of requests from Nucor Corporation (Nucor) and United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), domestic producers of hot-rolled steel, we are now rescinding this administrative review in full.
David Cordell, Ericka Ukrow, or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0408, (202) 482–0405, or (202) 482–3019, respectively.
On March 1, 2010, the Department published in the
On May 4, 2010, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to all four mandatory respondents. Also, on May 4, 2010, respondent CSN timely submitted its certificate of no shipments, entries or sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR) March 1, 2009, through February 28, 2010, and requested rescission of its administrative review. CST, on May 17, 2010, filed a timely certification that CST had no shipments, sales or entries to the United States during the POR, and consequently also requested that its review be rescinded. In addition, it claimed that ArcelorMittal Brasil is the successor-in-interest to CST and requested the Department rescind its review. USIMINAS/COSIPA submitted, on May 26, 2010, a certification that it had no sales, shipments or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
On June 3, 2010, the Department issued a letter to CST and ArcelorMittal Brasil clarifying that in order to be recognized as the successor-in-interest of CST it has to formally request the Department to conduct a changed circumstances review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
The Department issued a “No Shipment Inquiry” to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on June 15, 2010, to confirm that there were no shipments or entries of hot-rolled steel from Brazil produced or exported by USIMINAS/COSIPA, CSN and CST during the POR of the instant administrative review. CBP only responds to the Department's inquiry when CBP finds that there have been shipments or entries of the merchandise in question. CBP did not respond to the Department's inquiry, and no party submitted comments. Based on this information, on July 6, 2010, the Department substantiated USIMINAS/COSIPA's, CST's, and CSN's claims that they did not have any shipments or entries of hot-rolled steel from Brazil during the instant POR.
On July 22, 2010, and July 23, 2010, respectively, Nucor and U.S. Steel timely filed letters withdrawing their requests for review of the four companies for which the Department initiated this review basing their decision on the Department's substantiation of respondents' claims of no shipments or entries of the subject merchandise during the POR.
The POR is March 1, 2009, through February 28, 2010.
The products covered by the order are certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (
Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.012 percent of boron, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example,
Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications:
Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications:
Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by either (i) tensile strength between 540 N/mm
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this order, including: Vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.01.80.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party
The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a 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 doubled antidumping duties.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), has submitted an information collection request (ICR) consisting of four instruments entitled Request to Transfer a Segal Education Award Amount Form, Accept/Decline Award Transfer Form, Request to Revoke Transfer of Education Award Form, and Rescind Acceptance of Award Transfer Form to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Corporation requests that OMB review and approve its emergency request by October 26, 2010 for a period of six months. A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Corporation for National and Community Service, Bruce Kellogg, (202) 606–6954, or by e-mail at
Since the Corporation requested OMB's approval of this emergency request in October there will not be enough time for the public to provide comments through this
Bruce Kellogg, (202) 606–6954 or e-mail to bkellogg@cns.gov.
This new information collection request implements provisions of the Serve America Act (42 U.S.C. 12501), which authorize AmeriCorps members to transfer all or a part of an education award, with limitations on who can transfer an award and who can receive the transferred award.
We are therefore submitting the enclosed request under 5 CFR 1320.13 to OMB for emergency processing and approval of information collection activities.
This submission includes four documents entitled Request to Transfer a Segal Education Award Amount Form, Accept/Decline Award Transfer Form, Request to Revoke Transfer of Education Award Form, and Rescind Acceptance of Award Transfer Form.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice to delete a system of records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete a system of records notice from its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on November 24, 2010, unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mrs. Cindy Allard at (703) 588–6830.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete one system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
Standards of Conduct Inquiry File (February 22, 1993; 58 FR 10227).
The OSD Standards of Conduct Inquiry File (P32) can been deleted. The system is covered by the System of Record Notice OSC/GOVT–1 OSC Complaint, Litigation and Political Activity Files (November 19, 1999; 64 FR 63359).
National Security Agency/Central Security Service; DoD.
Notice to amend a system of records.
The National Security Agency/Central Security Service is proposing to amend a system of records notice in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The changes will be effective on November 24, 2010, unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Anne Hill at (301) 688–6527.
The National Security Agency/Central Security Service systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The specific changes to the records systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
Garnishment Processing Files (May 31, 2006; 71 FR 30887).
Delete entry and replace with “44 U.S.C. 3101, Records management by agency heads; general duties; 5 U.S.C. 5520a, Garnishment of Pay; 42 U.S.C. 659, Consent by United States to income withholding, garnishment, and similar proceedings for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations; 5 CFR part 581, Processing Garnishment Orders for Child Support and/or Alimony; 32 CFR part 112, Indebtedness of Military Personnel; and E.O. 9397 (SSN) as amended.”
Delete entry and replace with “Director, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6000.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6248.
Written inquiries should contain the individual's full name, address and telephone number.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6248.
Written inquiries should contain the individual's full name, address and telephone number.”
Delete entry and replace with “The NSA/CSS rules for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations are published at 32 CFR part 322 or may be obtained by written request addressed to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6248.”
Garnishment Processing Files.
National Security Agency/Central Security Service, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6000.
DoD civilian employees, employee dependents.
Records include correspondence, type of garnishment, individual court withholding notices or court orders, garnishment orders, child support account numbers, records on employees and dependents to include name, Social Security Number (SSN), address, and phone number.
44 U.S.C. 3101, Records management by agency heads; general duties; 5 U.S.C. 5520a, Garnishment of Pay; 42 U.S.C. 659, Consent by United States to income withholding, garnishment, and similar proceedings for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations; 5 CFR part 581, Processing Garnishment Orders for Child Support and/or Alimony; 32 CFR part 112, Indebtedness of Military Personnel; and E.O. 9397 (SSN) as amended.
To maintain records relating to the processing of court orders for the garnishment of wages.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To State child support agencies, in response to their written requests for information regarding the gross and disposable pay of civilian employees, for purposes of assisting agencies in the discharge of their responsibilities under Federal and State law.
To the Internal Revenue Service to report taxable earnings and taxes withheld, accounting, and tax audits and to compute or resolve tax liability or tax levies.
To private collection contactors to locate a taxpayer and to collect or compromise a claim against, or debt of, the taxpayer.
To consumer or commercial reporting agency in accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the NSA/CSS's compilation of record systems also apply to this record system.
Records are maintained in paper files and electronic media.
By name, Social Security Number (SSN), State of jurisdiction, court of jurisdiction, child support account number, organization, and type of garnishment.
Buildings are secured by a series of guarded pedestrian gates and checkpoints. Access to facilities is limited to security-cleared personnel and escorted visitors only. With the facilities themselves, access to paper and computer printouts are controlled by limited-access facilities and lockable containers. Access to electronic means is controlled by computer password protection.
Records are periodically reviewed for retention. Records having no evidential, informational, or historical value or not required to be permanently retained are destroyed. Garnishment and Levy notices are destroyed three years from termination date. Destruction is by pulping, burning, shredding, or erasure or destruction of magnetic media.
Director, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6000.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6248.
Written inquiries should contain the individual's full name, address and telephone number.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6248.
Written inquiries should contain the individual's full name, address and telephone number.
The NSA/CSS rules for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations are published at 32 CFR part 322 or may be obtained by written request addressed to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6248.
Individuals. Federal/State agencies and collection agencies.
None.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Renewal of Federal advisory committee.
Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 9355, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102–3.50, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy (hereafter referred to as the “Board”).
Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee
The Board is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice and recommendation to the Secretary of the Defense, through the Secretary of the Air Force, and to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, relating to the U.S. Air Force Academy, to include morale, discipline, and social climate, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides to consider.
The Board shall prepare a semiannual report containing its views and recommendations pertaining to the U.S. Air Force Academy, based on its meeting since the last such report and any other considerations it determines relevant. Each such report shall be submitted concurrently to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Air Force, and to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
The Board is constituted annually, and it shall be composed of not more than fifteen members. Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 9355(a) and (b)(2), the Board members shall include:
a. Six persons designated by the President, at least two of whom shall be graduates of the U.S. Air Force Academy;
b. The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, or his designee;
c. Four persons designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, three of whom shall be members of the House of Representatives and the fourth of whom may not be a member of the House of Representatives;
d. The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, or his designee.
e. Three other members of the Senate designated by the Vice president or the President pro tempore of the Senate, two of whom are members of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
The Board members referenced in (a) above, designated by the President, shall serve for three years except that any member whose term of office has expired shall continue to serve until a successor is appointed. In addition, the President shall designate persons each year to succeed the members referenced in (a) above whose terms expire that year.
The Board members shall select the Board Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from the total membership.
If a member of the Board dies or resigns or is terminated as a member of the Board, a successor shall be designated for the unexpired portion of the term by the official who designated the member.
Each member of the Board who is a member of the Armed Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States shall serve without compensation (other than compensation to which entitled as a member of the Armed Forces or an officer or employee of the United States, respectively). Individuals appointed by the President shall receive no compensation for their service on the Board. While performing duties as a member of the Board, each member of the Board and each adviser shall be reimbursed under Government travel regulations for travel expenses.
If a member of the Board fails to attend two successive Board meetings, except in a case in which an absence is approved in advance for good cause by the Board chairperson, such failure shall be grounds for termination from membership on the Board, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 9355(c)(2)(A) (“absenteeism provision”).
Termination of membership on the Board pursuant to the absenteeism provision, in the case of a member of the Board who is not a member of Congress, may be made by the Board's chairperson; and in the case of a member of the Board who is a member of Congress, may be made only by the official who designated the member. When the member of the board is subject to termination from membership on the Board under the absenteeism provision, the Board's chairperson shall notify the official who designated the member. Upon receipt of such a notification with respect to a member of the Board who is a member of Congress, the official who designated the member shall take such action, as that official considers appropriate.
Upon approval by the Secretary of the Air Force, the Board, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 9355(g), may call in advisers for consultation. These advisors shall, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, serve without compensation.
With DOD approval, the Board is authorized to establish subcommittees, as necessary and consistent with its mission. These subcommittees shall operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, and other governing Federal policies and regulations.
Such subcommittees shall not work independently of the chartered Board, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Board; nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any Federal officers or employees who are not Board members.
Subcommittee members, who are not Board members, shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense according to governing DoD policy and procedures. Such individuals, if not full-time or part-time government employees, shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and serve as special government employees, whose appointments must be renewed on an annual basis.
The Board shall meet at the call of the Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Board's Chairperson. The estimated number of Board meetings is at least four per year, with at least two of those meetings at the Academy.
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with governing DoD policies and procedures.
In addition, the Designated Federal Officer is required to be in attendance for the full duration at all Board and subcommittee meetings, however, in the absence of the Designated Federal Officer, an Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend entire Board or subcommittee meeting.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Renewal of Federal advisory committee.
Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 4355, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102–3.50, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the United States Military Academy Board of Visitors (hereafter referred to as the “Board”).
Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703–601–6128.
The Board is a non-discretionary federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice and recommendation to the President of the United States on matters relating to the U.S. Military Academy, including the following: morale and discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and any other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides to consider.
The Board shall visit the U.S. Military Academy annually, and any other official visits by the Board or its members to the Academy, other than the annual visit, shall be made in compliance with the requirements set forth in Title 10, United States Code, section 4355(d).
The Board shall submit a written report to the President of the United States within 60 days after its annual visit to the U.S. Military Academy, to include the Board's views and recommendations pertaining to the Academy.
The Secretary of the Army may act upon the Board's advice and recommendations.
The Board shall be comprised of not more than fifteen members. Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 4355(a), the Board members shall include:
a. The Chairperson of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, or designee;
b. Three other members of the Senate designated by the Vice President or President pro tempore of the Senate, two of whom are members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations
c. The Chairperson of the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, or designee
d. Four other members of the House of Representatives designated by the Speaker of the House or Representatives, two of whom are members of the House Committee on Appropriations; and,
e. Six persons designated by the President.
Board members designated by the President, who are not full-time federal officers or employees, shall be appointed to serve as special government employees under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and these appointments shall be renewed on an annual basis. Board members shall, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, serve without compensation.
Board members designated by the President shall serve for three years except that any member whose term of office has expired shall continue to serve until a successor is appointed. In addition, the President shall designate two persons each year to succeed the members whose terms expire that year.
If a member of the Board dies or resigns, a successor shall be designated for the unexpired portion of the term by the official who designated the member. The Board members shall select the Board Chairperson from the total membership.
With the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, board members shall serve without compensation.
The Board, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4355(g), may upon approval by the Secretary of the Army, call in advisers for consultation, and these advisers shall, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, serve without compensation.
With DOD approval, the Board is authorized to establish subcommittees, as necessary and consistent with its mission. These subcommittees shall operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and other governing Federal policies and regulations.
Such subcommittees shall not work independently of the chartered Board, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Board; nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any Federal officers or employees who are not Board members.
Subcommittee members, if not full-time or part-time government employees, shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense according to governing DoD policies and procedures. Such individuals shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and shall serve as special government employees, whose appointments must be renewed on an annual basis.
The Board shall meet at the call of the Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Board's Chairperson. The estimated number of Committee meetings is four per year.
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with governing policies and procedures.
In addition, the Designated Federal Officer is required to be in attendance at all Board and subcommittee meetings, however, in the absence of the Designated Federal Officer, an Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend the meeting.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the United States Military Academy Board of Visitors membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the United States Military Academy Board of Visitors.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the United States Military Academy Board of Visitors, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the United
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150, will announce planned meetings of the United States Military Academy Board of Visitors. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Renewal of Federal advisory committee.
Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 6968, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102–3.50, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the United States Naval Academy Board of Visitors (hereafter referred to as the “Board”).
Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703–601–6128.
The Board is a non-discretionary federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on matters relating to but not limited to morale and discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods and other matters relating to the United States Naval Academy that the Board decides to consider.
The Board shall visit the Naval Academy annually, and any other official visits by the Board or its members to the Academy, other than the annual visit, shall be made in compliance with the requirements set forth in Title 10, United States Code, section 6968(d).
The Board shall submit a written report to the President of the United States within 60 days after its annual visit to the Naval Academy, to include the Board's advice and recommendations.
The Secretary of the Navy may act upon the Board's advice and recommendations.
The Board, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 6968(a), shall be constituted annually and shall be composed of no more than fifteen members. The Board membership shall include:
a. The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, or his designee;
b. Three other members of the Senate designated by the Vice President or the President pro tempore of the Senate, two of whom are members of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
c. The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, or his designee;
d. Four other members of the House of Representatives designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, two of whom are members of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
e. Six persons designated by the President.
Board members designated by the President shall serve for three years each, except that any member whose term of office has expired shall continue to serve until his successor is appointed. In addition, the President shall designate two persons each year to succeed the members whose terms expire that year. If a Board member dies or resigns, a successor shall be designated for the unexpired portion of the term by the official who designated the member.
The Board members shall select the Board's Chairperson from the total membership.
With the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, Board members shall serve without compensation.
The Board, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 6968(g) and (h), may upon approval by the Secretary of the Navy, call in advisers for consultation, and these advisers shall, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, serve without compensation.
With DoD approval, the Board is authorized to establish subcommittees, as necessary and consistent with its mission. These subcommittees or working groups shall operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and other governing Federal statutes and regulations.
Such subcommittees or workgroups shall not work independently of the chartered Board, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Board; nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any Federal officers or employees who are not Board members.
Subcommittee members, if not full-time or part-time government employees, shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense according to governing DoD policy and procedures. Such individuals shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and shall serve as special government employees, whose appointments must be renewed on an annual basis.
The Board shall meet at the call of the Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Board's Chairperson. The estimated number of Board meetings is four per year.
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with governing DoD policies and procedures. In addition, the Designated Federal Officer is required to be in attendance at all Board and subcommittee meetings, however, in the absence of the Designated Federal Officer, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend the Board or subcommittee meeting.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the United States Naval Academy Board of Visitors membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the United States Naval Academy Board of Visitors.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the United States Naval Academy Board of Visitors, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the United States Naval Academy Board of Visitors Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150, will announce planned meetings of the United States Naval Academy Board of Visitors. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Renewal of Federal advisory committee.
Under the provisions of section 581 of Public Law 110–181, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102–3.65, the Department of Defense announces that it is renewing the charter for the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (hereafter referred to as the “Council”).
Jim Freeman, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703–601–6128.
The Council is a non-discretionary federal advisory committee and its mission is to review and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on: (a) The policy and plans required under 10 U.S.C. 1781b; (b) monitor requirements for the support of military family readiness by the Department of Defense; and (c) evaluate and assess the effectiveness of the DoD military family readiness programs and activities.
The Council, no later than February 1st of each year, shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and the Defense congressional oversight committees a report on military family readiness. Each report, at a minimum, shall include the following:
a. An assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of the military family readiness programs and activities of the Department of Defense during the preceding fiscal year in meeting the needs and requirements of military families.
b. Recommendations on actions to be taken to improve the capability of the military family readiness programs and activities of the Department of Defense to meet the needs and requirements of military families, including actions relating to the allocation of funding and other resources to and among such programs and activities.
The Council, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1781a(b), as amended by section 562 of Public Law 111–84, shall be comprised of no more than 14 members, appointed as specified below:
a. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, who shall serve as chair of the Council.
b. One representative of each of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense.
c. The senior enlisted advisors of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, or the spouse of a senior enlisted advisor in lieu of that Military Services' senior listed advisor.
d. One representative from the Army National Guard or Air National Guard, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense.
e. One representative from the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve or Air Force Reserve, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense.
f. Three individuals appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among representatives of military family organizations, including military family organizations that represent the Regular and Reserve Components.
With regard to membership requirements of subparagraph “b” above, the Secretary of Defense has appointed the Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy; the Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force; and the Assistant Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. With regard to membership requirements of subparagraph “c” above, the Secretary of Defense has appointed the senior enlisted members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The appointments of these members pursuant to subparagraphs “b” and “c”, unless otherwise amended by the Secretary of Defense, shall remain in effect for the life of the Council, and these appointments will be based upon the specified DoD ex-officio positions. Thus, Council membership of the particular individual serving as the member in a specified position shall be terminated at the conclusion of the member's qualifying status in that position. The successor in office shall assume the position as a Council member.
If the Secretary of Defense amends his standing appointment pursuant to subparagraph “c” above for the senior enlisted members of the Military Services to serve based upon the specified DoD ex-officio positions, and the Secretary appoints a spouse of a senior enlisted member in lieu of the senior enlisted member from a particular Military Service, the spouse would be appointed as a special government employee, unless the spouse was a regular government employee in his or her own right. The appointment of special government employees shall not be for more than one year, but may be renewed. However, if a spouse of a senior listed member is appointed pursuant to subparagraph c, such membership shall terminate at the conclusion of the senior enlisted member's tour of duty during which the spouse was appointed to the Council.
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1781a, as amended by section 562b of Public Law 111–84, individuals selected and appointed to positions covered by the membership requirements of subparagraphs “d” through “f” above shall serve three year terms on the Council.
Representation on the Council for subparagraph “d” above alternate every three years between the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. Representation on the Council for subparagraph “e” above shall rotate among the Reserve Components listed in subparagraph “d” above and pursuant to a set rotational scheme approved by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Council membership pursuant to subparagraphs “d” and “f” above shall terminate at the conclusion of the member's qualifying status. The successor in office shall assume the position as a Council member for the remainder of the three-year term.
Members of the National Guard and Reserve Components, who are assigned to title 10, United States Code positions, when appointed to the Council, shall serve as regular government employees.
Council members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who are not full-time or permanent part-time employees of the federal government, shall be appointed as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and serve as special government employees, whose appointments must be renewed on an annual basis.
The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the
With the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, Council members appointed as special government employees shall serve without compensation.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140, the public or interested organizations are reminded that they may submit written statements to the committee membership about the committee's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council's Designated Federal Officer, may be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy (DoN), after carefully weighing the environmental consequences of the proposed action as presented in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), announces its decision to implement the expanded safety zones and associated mitigation measures and continue DoN training at Pinecastle Range, as detailed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Renewal of Authorization to Use Pinecastle Range, Ocala National Forest, Florida, dated January 2002, in furtherance of DoN's statutory obligations under Title 10 of the United States Code governing the roles and responsibilities of the DoN. In its decision, the DoN considered applicable laws and executive orders, including an analysis of the effects of its actions in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, and the requirements of Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations and EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.
Implementation of the proposed action could begin immediately.
The complete text of the DoN's Record of Decision (ROD) is available for public viewing on the project Web site at
Department of the Army, DoD.
Record of Decision.
The Department of the Army announces the availability of the ROD, which summarizes the decision on how to implement property disposal in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (the Base Closure Act), Public Law 101–510, as amended, following the closure of Fort Monroe, Virginia.
The Army has decided to implement its preferred alternative of early transfer of surplus non-reverting federal property to other entities for reuse. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, the Army prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that includes the evaluation of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of disposing of surplus Federal property that does not revert to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the implementation by others of reasonable, foreseeable reuse alternatives for the entire property. Under the early transfer alternative, the Army can transfer and dispose of non-reverting property for redevelopment before environmental remedial actions have been completed. This method of early disposal, allowable under Section 120(h)(3)(C) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), would defer the CERCLA covenant requirement to complete all necessary environmental cleanup prior to the transfer of the remediated property. In this way, parcels could become available for redevelopment and reuse sooner under this disposal alternative than under any other. The Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia must concur with the deferral request for the non-reversionary property at Fort Monroe.
To obtain a copy of the ROD, contact Mr. Robert Reali, Fort Monroe BRAC Environmental Coordinator, Directorate of Public Works, 318 Cornog Lane, Fort Monroe, VA 23651–1110; via e-mail address at
Mr. Rob Reali at (757) 788–5363.
The Fort Monroe Authority's (FMA) Reuse Plan provides the basis for the development of reasonable and foreseeable reuse scenarios evaluated in the FEIS. The FMA is the implementation authority for the redevelopment of Fort Monroe and will implement the Reuse Plan. The range of reuse alternatives evaluated in the FEIS encompasses reasonably foreseeable variations of the Reuse Plan and the results of this analysis were used by the Army in its decision regarding disposition of the property.
A Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the Closure and Disposal of Fort Monroe has been legally executed by the signing of authorized representatives of the Army, the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority (now the FMA), and the National Park Service. Army obligations fully described in the PA are considered mitigations required under the National Historic Preservation Act. Specific mitigation measures the Army commits to perform or has completed are outlined in the ROD.
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Department of Education (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden on the public and helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 27, 2010.
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Department of Education (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden on the public and helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 27, 2010.
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.
Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Disposal Subcommittee. The Disposal Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (the Commission). The establishment of subcommittees is authorized in the Commission's charter. The Commission was organized pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) (the Act). This notice is provided in accordance with the Act.
Thursday, November 4, 2010 8:30 a.m.–1:15 p.m.
St. Regis Hotel, 923 16th Street and K Street, NW., Washington, DC, Telephone: (202) 638–2626.
Timothy A. Frazier, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 586–4243 or facsimile (202) 586–0544; e-mail
The Co-chairs of the Commission requested the formation of the Disposal Subcommittee to answer the question: “[h]ow can the U.S. go about establishing one or more disposal sites for high-level nuclear wastes in a manner that is technically, politically and socially acceptable?”
Those not able to attend the meeting or have insufficient time to address the subcommittee are invited to send a written statement to Timothy A. Frazier, U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, e-mail to
Additionally, the meeting will be available via live video webcast. The link will be available at
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Monday, November 15, 2010, 1 p.m.–5 p.m.; Tuesday, November 16, 2010, 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m.
The Double Tree Hotel, 2651 Perimeter Parkway, Augusta, GA 30909.
Gerri Flemming, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952–7886.
If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting on Monday, November 15, 2010.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 6 p.m.
DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
Patricia J. Halsey, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM–90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576–4025; Fax (865) 576–2347 or e-mail:
Take notice that on October 15, 2010, the applicants listed above submitted a revised baseline filing of their Statement of Operating Conditions for services provided under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above 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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above 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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above 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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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.
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 e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211).
Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above 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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above 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 p.m. Eastern
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 e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 15, 2010, American Midstream (Alabama Intrastate), LLC pursuant to an October 7, 2010, Letter Order issued in Docket Nos. PR10–24–000 and PR10–24–001 which required American Midstream (Alabama Intrastate), LLC to file a revised Statement of Operating Conditions.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Tallulah Gas Storage Project, involving construction and operation of facilities by Tallulah Gas Storage, LLC (TGS) in Madison Parish, Louisiana. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on November 17, 2010. Further details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
On November 3, 2010, the Office of Energy Projects staff will conduct on onsite environmental review of the project area to gather data for its environmental analysis of the proposed project. Staff will examine the specific pipeline route, leaching plant location, caverns, well locations, and alternative locations filed by TGS. Viewing of this area is anticipated to be from public access points and TGS' right-of-way.
All interested parties are invited to attend but must provide their own transportation. Those attending should meet at the following location and time:
• On November 3, 2010 at 1 p.m. Central Time in the parking area of the TA Travel Center at 224 Highway 65 in Tallulah, Louisiana at Exit 171 of Interstate-20. Meet by the company truck with the “Tallulah Gas Storage” sign.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a storage company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with State or Federal law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” was attached to the project notice TGS provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
TGS proposes to construct a new natural gas storage facility within a geologic salt dome in Madison Parish, Louisiana. The Tallulah Gas Storage Project would include three salt dome storage caverns, each with a capacity of 11.4 billion cubic feet (Bcf), for a total facility capacity of 34.2 Bcf. According to TGS, its project would provide storage services through interconnections with four nearby interstate natural gas transmission pipelines.
The Tallulah Gas Storage Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Three storage caverns;
• Dual 3.29-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter bidirectional natural gas pipelines;
• One 28,410-horsepower compressor station;
• A leaching plant;
• 14 salt water disposal wells, 3 raw water supply wells, and 1 observation well;
• Other appurtenant water and brine disposal pipelines; and
• 4.5 miles of nonjurisdictional electric distribution lines and additional electric facilities.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 147 acres of land for the storage facility, the pipeline rights-of-way, and additional temporary workspaces. Following construction, about 74 acres would be maintained for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• Land use;
• Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• Cultural resources;
• Vegetation and wildlife;
• Air quality and noise;
• Endangered and threatened species; and
• Public safety.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA. The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the comments received during the scoping process, may be published and distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section below.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit its views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send them so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before November 17, 2010.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP10–494–000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Any public meetings or additional site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Finally, to request additional information on the project or to provide comments directly to the project sponsor, you can contact TGS through its parent company Icon NGS by calling toll free at 1–877–318–3938 or by e-mail at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Line N Projects proposed by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) in the above referenced docket. National Fuel requests authorization to abandon, construct, operate, and maintain the Line N Relocation and Interconnect (R&I) Project and the Line N Compressor Installation Expansion (CIE) Project (together, the Line N Projects or Projects), located in Greene and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania (PA). National Fuel has stated that the purpose of the proposed Project is twofold (1) to relocate the existing Line N, which is currently affected by mining operations in the area and (2) increase capacity of the system.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Line N Projects in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The proposed Line N Projects includes the following facilities:
• Construction of 20.1 miles of 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;
• Construction of the new Holbrook M&R Station;
• Construction of the new 4,740 horsepower Buffalo Compressor Station; and
• Abandon service, and idle approximately 15.6 miles of existing 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline.
The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at
Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, State, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before November 18, 2010.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP10–457 or CP10–458) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply filing comments will not serve to make the commenter a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208–FERC or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
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 December 27, 2010.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2007–0201, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
LCDR Samantha Fontenelle, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566–2083; fax number: (202) 566–0409; e-mail address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2007–0201, 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,
(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
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 ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
There is a decrease of 229 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects a change in how the States, Tribes and territories provide the fish advisory data to EPA. The data tool is no longer being used by States to enter data into the NLFA database.
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.
Notification of Public Meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92–463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues
The NEJAC meeting will convene Tuesday, November 16, 2010, from 1 p.m. until 3:45 p.m., and reconvene Wednesday, November 17, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, November 18, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. All noted times are Central Time.
One public comment session relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC (
The NEJAC meeting will be held at the Westin Crown Center, One Pershing Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64108, telephone 816–474–4400, fax 816–843–4822 or toll free: 1–800–937–8461.
Questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Mr. Aaron Bell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at 202–564–1044, via e-mail at
Pre-registration by 11 a.m. Monday, November 1, 2010, for all attendees is highly recommended. To register online, visit the Web site address above. Requests for pre-registration forms should be faxed to Ms. Estela Rosas, EPA Contractor, APEX Direct, Inc., at 877–773–0779 or e-mailed to
The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator on areas that may include, among other things, “advice about broad, cross-cutting issues related to environmental justice, including environment-related strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, and economic issues related to environmental justice.”
The meeting shall be used to receive comments, and discuss and provide recommendations regarding these primary areas: (1) EPA's Plan EJ 2014; (2) EPA's charge to the NEJAC on incorporating environmental justice into the permitting process, (3) rural environmental justice challenges; and (4) green impact zones.
A.
B.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee NO
The CASAC Panel will hold a teleconference on November 9, 2010 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) and, if additional time is needed, on November 10, 2010 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time). The chartered CASAC will hold a teleconference on December 6, 2010 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. to review the Panel's draft report.
The public teleconferences will be conducted by telephone only.
Any member of the public who wishes to submit a written or provide a brief oral statement or wants further information concerning the November 9 and 10, 2010 teleconferences may contact Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail (202) 564–2218; fax (202) 565–2098; or e-mail at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92–463 5 U.S.C., App. 2, notice is hereby given that the CASAC NO
The CASAC NO
Background on the CASAC panel's advice and review of other EPA documents related to the secondary NAAQS review for NO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the chartered SAB on November 22, 2010 to conduct a quality review of a draft SAB report.
The public teleconference will be held on November 22, 2010 from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Time).
The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.
Any member of the public wishing to obtain general information concerning this public teleconference should contact Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail (202) 564–2218; fax (202) 565–2098; or e-mail at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2, notice is hereby given that the EPA Science Advisory Board will hold a public teleconference to quality review a revised draft report from the SAB Work
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of final decision on petition.
Notice is hereby given by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that an exemption to the land disposal restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has been granted to ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC (AMBH) of Burns Harbor, Indiana, for three Class I injection wells located in Burns Harbor, Indiana. As required by 40 CFR part 148, AMBH has demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents out of the injection zone or into an underground source of drinking water (USDW) for at least 10,000 years. This final decision allows the continued underground injection by AMBH of a specific restricted waste, Spent Pickle Liquor (code K062 under 40 CFR part 261), into one Class I hazardous waste injection well specifically identified as Spent Pickle Liquor No. 1; and of waste ammonia liquor (codes D010, D018 or D038 under 40 CFR part 261), into two Class I hazardous injection wells specifically identified as Waste Ammonia Liquor No. 1 and Waste Ammonia Liquor No. 2 at the AMBH facility. This decision constitutes a final EPA action for which there is no administrative appeal process.
This action is effective as of October 25, 2010.
William Bates, Lead Petition Reviewer, EPA, Region 5, telephone (312) 886–6110. Copies of the petition and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file and are part of the Administrative Record. It is recommended that you contact the lead reviewer prior to reviewing the Administrative Record.
AMBH submitted a petition for renewal of an existing exemption from the land disposal restrictions of hazardous waste on March 15, 2007. EPA personnel reviewed all data pertaining to the petition, including, but not limited to, well construction, well operations, regional and local geology, seismic activity, penetrations of the confining zone, and computational models of the injection zone. EPA has determined that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the nature of the waste streams are such that reliable predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that injected fluids will not migrate out of the injection zone within 10,000 years, as set forth at 40 CFR part 148. The injection zone for the AMBH facility is composed of the lower Eau Claire Formation and Mount Simon Sandstone, between 2,180 and 4,297 feet. The confining zone at the AMBH facility is the upper Eau Claire Formation, which is found between 1,936 and 2,180 feet. The confining zone is separated from the lowermost underground source of drinking water (at a depth of 726 feet below ground level) by a sequence of permeable and less permeable sedimentary rocks, which provide additional protection from fluid migration into drinking water sources.
EPA issued a draft decision, which described the reasons for granting this exemption in more detail, a fact sheet, which summarized these reasons, and a public notice on February 19, 2010, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.10. A public meeting and a public hearing were held on March 24, 2010. The public comment period expired on April 7, 2010. The comments EPA received included questions on the evaluation, the level of
This exemption is subject to the following conditions. Non-compliance with any of these conditions is grounds for termination of the exemption:
(1) All regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 148.23 and 148.24 are incorporated by reference;
(2) The exemption applies to the existing Spent Pickle Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #1 and Waste Ammonia Liquor #2 injection wells, located at the AMBH facility at 250 West U.S. Highway 12, Burns Harbor, Indiana.
(3) Injection is limited to that part of the Lower Mount Simon Sandstone at depths between 2,734 and 4,297 feet.
(4) Only hazardous wastes denoted by the waste codes D010, D018, D038 and K062 may be injected. Other fluids necessary for well testing, stimulation, etc. may be injected when approved by EPA.
(5) The chemical properties of the injectate that will be monitored are limited according to the table below:
(6) The chemical properties of the injectate that defined the edge of the plume in the demonstration are benzene for waste ammonia liquor and pH for the spent pickle liquor.
(7) The volume of wastes injected in any month through the wells must not exceed 92,043,000 gal (for Spent Pickle Liquor #1) and 157,788,000 gal (for Waste Ammonia Liquor #1 and Waste Ammonia Liquor #2 combined).
(8) This exemption is approved for the 21-year modeled injection period, which ends on December 31, 2027. AMBH may petition EPA for a reissuance of the exemption beyond that date, provided that a new and complete no-migration petition is received at EPA, Region 5, by July 1, 2027.
(9) AMBH shall submit monthly reports to EPA containing a fluid analysis of the injected wastes which shall include the chemical and physical properties upon which the no-migration demonstration was based, including the physical and chemical properties listed in Conditions 5 and 6 of this exemption approval.
(10) AMBH shall submit a report containing the results of a bottom hole pressure survey (fall-off test) performed on Spent Pickle Liquor No. 1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #1, or Waste Ammonia Liquor #2 to EPA annually. The survey shall be performed after shutting in the well for a period of time sufficient to allow the pressure in the injection interval to reach equilibrium, in accordance with 40 CFR 146.68(e)(1). The annual report shall include a comparison of reservoir parameters determined from the fall-off test with parameters used in the approved no-migration petition.
(11) The petitioner shall fully comply with all requirements set forth in Underground Injection Control Permits IN–127–1W–0001, IN–127–1W–0003, and IN–127–1W–0004 issued by the EPA; and
(12) Whenever EPA determines that the basis for approval of a petition may no longer be valid, EPA may terminate this exemption and require a new demonstration in accordance with 40 CFR 148.24.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.
Proposed reissuance of a general permit.
On October 7, 2010, the general permit regulating the activities of suction dredge gold placer mining operations in the State of Alaska expired. EPA proposes to reissue this general permit with no changes. On October 31, 2008, EPA approved the application submitted by the State of Alaska to administer the NPDES Program. Under the State program, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) will be phasing in the program over a three year period with permit authority for different categories of discharges being transferred to the State on specific dates. Under this phased approach, authority to issue permits to the mining sector will transfer to Alaska on October 31, 2010. According to the Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and ADEC, EPA will complete work on any project where substantial work has been initiated prior to the transfer dates, however, the State would issue any final permit after the transfer date. Due to the timing of the public notice of this permit, the final permit will be issued by the State of Alaska.
Interested persons may submit comments on the proposed reissuance of the GP to EPA, Region 10 at the address below. Comments must be postmarked by December 9, 2010.
Comments on the proposed GP reissuance should be sent to the attention of the Director, Office of Water & Watersheds, EPA—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, OWW–130, Seattle, WA 98101. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
Copies of the proposed GP, Fact Sheet and other documents from the Administrative Record are available upon request. Requests may be made to Audrey Washington at (206) 553–0523 or
The draft GP and fact sheet may also be found on the EPA Region 10 Web site at
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 9, 2010.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105–1521:
1.
In accordance with Section 271.25 of its rules regarding availability of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting held on September 21, 2010.
The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with federal funds trading in a range from 0 to ¼ percent. The Committee directs the Desk to maintain the total face value of domestic securities held in the System Open Market Account at approximately $2 trillion by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities. The System Open Market Account Manager and the Secretary will keep the Committee informed of ongoing developments regarding the System's balance sheet that could affect the attainment over time of the Committee's objectives of maximum employment and price stability.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 19, 2010.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Clifford Stanford, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
2.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291:
1.
Federal Maritime Commission.
October 27, 2010–10 a.m.
800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
Part of the meeting will be in Open Session and the remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session.
1. Staff Briefing on the 2010 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation—33rd Transportation Working Group Meeting.
2. Commission Review of the Impact of the European Union Repeal of the Liner Conference Block Exemption—Staff Recommendation and Draft Notice of Inquiry.
1. Staff Briefing on Reporting Requirement Options for Global Vessel Alliances.
2. Staff Briefing on Semi-Annual Meeting with the Transpacific Stabilization Agreement, FMC Agreement No. 011223.
3. Staff Briefing Regarding China Maritime Regulatory Issues.
Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523–5725.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meetings.
This notice announces forthcoming subcommittee meetings of a Federal advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The meetings will be open to the public via dial-in access only.
If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Judy Sparrow at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
ONC is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meetings.
This notice announces forthcoming subcommittee meetings of a Federal advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The meetings will be open to the public via dial-in access only.
If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Judy Sparrow at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
ONC is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending ONC's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Judy Sparrow at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
ONC is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639–5960 or send an e-mail to
Health Marketing (OMB No. 0920–0798, exp. 01/31/2011)—Revision—Office of the Associate Director for Communication (OADC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Today, CDC is globally recognized for conducting research and investigations and for its action oriented approach. CDC applies research and findings to improve people's daily lives and responds to health emergencies—something that distinguishes CDC from its peer agencies.
CDC is committed to achieving true improvements in people's health. To do this, the agency is defining specific
It is imperative that CDC provide high-quality timely information and programs in the most effective ways to help people, families, and communities protect their health and safety. Through continuous consumer feedback, prevention research, and public health information technology, we identify and evaluate health needs and interests, translate science into actions to meet those needs, and engage the public in the excitement of discovery and the progress being made to improve the health of the Nation. In our outreach to partners, we build relationships that model shared learning, mutual trust, and diversity in points of view and sectors of society.
OADC is requesting a 3-year extension of OMB 0920–0798, Health Marketing, to provide feedback on the development, implementation and satisfaction regarding public health services, products, communication campaigns and information. The information will be collected using standard qualitative and quantitative methods such as interviews, focus groups, and panels, as well as questionnaires administered in person, by telephone, by mail, by e-mail, and online. More specific types of studies may include: User experience and user-testing; concept/product/package development testing; brand positioning/identity research; customer satisfaction surveying; ethnography/observational studies; and mystery shopping. The data will be used to provide input to the development, delivery and communication of public health services and information at CDC and to address emerging programmatic needs.
Every National Center and Office at CDC will have the opportunity to utilize this generic clearance. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated burden hours are 11,250.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639–5960 or send an e-mail to
National Disease Surveillance Program II. Disease Summaries (0920–0004 Exp. 6/30/2013)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) (proposed), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Surveillance of the incidence and distribution of disease has been an important function of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) since 1878. Through the years, PHS/CDC has formulated practical methods of disease control through field investigations. The CDC National Disease Surveillance Program is based on the premise that diseases cannot be diagnosed, prevented, or controlled until existing knowledge is expanded and new ideas developed and implemented. Over the years, the mandate of CDC has broadened to include preventive health activities and the surveillance systems maintained have expanded.
CDC and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) collect data on disease and preventable conditions in accordance with jointly approved plans. Changes in the surveillance program and in reporting methods are effected in the same manner. At the onset of this surveillance program in 1968, the CSTE and CDC decided on which diseases warranted surveillance. These diseases are reviewed and revised based on variations in the public's health. Surveillance forms are distributed to the State and local health departments who voluntarily submit these reports to CDC at variable frequencies, either weekly or monthly. CDC then calculates and publishes weekly statistics via the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), providing the states with timely aggregates of their submissions.
The following diseases/conditions are included in this program: Diarrheal disease surveillance (includes campylobacter, salmonella, and shigella), foodborne outbreaks, arboviral surveillance (ArboNet), Influenza virus, including the annual survey and influenza-like illness, Respiratory and Enterovirus surveillance, rabies, waterborne diseases, cholera and other vibrio illnesses, Listeria, babesiosis, brucellosis, Harmful Algal Bloom-related Infectious Surveillance System (HABISS) data entry form, and the HABISS monthly reporting form. These data are essential on the local, state, and Federal levels for measuring trends in diseases, evaluating the effectiveness of current prevention strategies, and determining the need for modifying current prevention measures.
This request is for revision of the currently approved data collection for three years. The revisions include minor changes to reporting forms already approved under this OMB Control Number. In addition, new influenza forms and one new rabies form have been added. A new parasitic disease is being included, babesiosis, to help track the increasing cases from transfusions. Furthermore, a brucellosis case report form that has been revised and updated from the 1980 form has been added to this OMB Control number to enhance surveillance and assist with understanding the changing epidemiology of brucellosis in the United States. Because of the distinct nature of each of the diseases, the number of cases reported annually is different for each. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 36,126.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639–5960 or send an e-mail to
Audience Analysis for Biomonitoring—New—National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
People's exposure to environmental chemicals can be a risk to their health. Scientists at the CDC use biomonitoring, which is the measurement of environmental chemicals in human tissues and fluids, to assess such exposure. Biomonitoring findings, however, do not typically provide information on health risks and toxicity data often lag behind new biomonitoring data. The health effects on humans are, therefore, often uncertain or unknown, particularly, for many new or “emerging” chemicals. Nevertheless, communicating biomonitoring findings for those charged with this task is necessary, especially due to the growing media coverage and public concern about chemicals found in the human body. The demand for answers and decreasing patience with uncertainty characterizes the interpretation of such results. This poses enormous challenges to those tasked to communicate such findings to both scientific and non-scientific audiences without a biomonitoring background.
The CDC is, therefore, interested in developing a framework for communicating health risk messages, particularly about emerging environmental chemicals, to the attentive public audience such as selected women who are pregnant or have very young children. The three environmental chemicals, Bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, and mercury have been selected for this study. They are of particular interest to these selected women as the risks of exposure are higher for very young children because of their hand-to-mouth behaviors and direct oral (mouth) contact with materials containing these chemicals. Furthermore, young children eat and drink more per pound of body weight than adults.
Focus groups will be conducted in different parts of the country with selected women. During phase one, eight exploratory focus groups will be conducted to develop messaging strategies and the results will be used in the development of preliminary messages about the emerging chemicals. The second phase will include six message testing focus groups to determine which messages are most attractive and compelling in terms of communicating health risk information about emerging chemicals.
Participants will be recruited via standard focus group recruitment methods. Most will come from an existing database (or list) of potential participants maintained by the focus group facility. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 273.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by December 27, 2010.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr. PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796–3794,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111–31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding a new chapter granting FDA important new authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
Section 917 of the Tobacco Control Act required the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to establish a Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC). Section 907(f) of the Tobacco Control Act requires the TPSAC to submit a report and recommendations to the Secretary on the impact of the use of dissolvable tobacco products on the public health, including such use among children. To ensure a comprehensive review of this issue, FDA is requesting tobacco industry documents and information to support the work of TPSAC. Under section 907(f), TPSAC must submit its report and recommendations to the Secretary within 2 years of its formation, or March 23, 2012.
In order to provide TPSAC with the information it needs to carry out its statutory obligation, FDA is requesting that tobacco companies submit information under section 904(b) of the Tobacco Control Act pertaining to documents and underlying scientific and financial information relating to research, and research findings, conducted, supported, or possessed by the manufacturer (or agents thereof) on a specified set of topics. For the purposes of this request, “research” may include, but is not limited to, focus groups, surveys, experimental clinical studies, post-marketing surveillance, toxicological and biochemical assays, taste panels, and assessments of the effectiveness of product marketing practices. Topics for which information relating to dissolvable tobacco products is requested are marketing research; marketing practices; effectiveness of marketing practices; and health, toxicological, behavioral, and physiological effects. FDA's request for documents related to dissolvable tobacco products includes, but is not limited to products for research, investigational use, developmental studies, test marketing, and/or commercial marketing, and also to the components, parts, or accessories of such products.
FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:
These burden estimates were derived by taking into consideration FDA's experience with document production, experience with submissions pertaining to other tobacco product-related information collections, and comments received in response to other tobacco product-related information collections. FDA is limiting the burden on respondents by only requesting documents on specific topics that will have utility for FDA. FDA is requesting the final version of documents or the most recent draft in the absence of a final document. Also, publically available published abstracts, editorials, letters, and manuscripts are not being requested, although FDA would appreciate a list of such publications. Information responsive to this section 904(b) information request that has been previously provided to FDA under the FD&C Act or other letter requests does not have to be resubmitted as long as the document is fully referenced. FDA believes that the number of documents being requested in this information collection will be limited due to the estimated small number of respondents and the relatively shorter amount of time these tobacco products have been in existence compared to other tobacco products.
FDA estimates that there are approximately 120 tobacco product manufacturers who may be affected by this collection of information. Of the total number of manufacturers, FDA estimates that most manufacturers (110) will not have documents which will be responsive to this section 904(b) request and that they will only need to send a letter notifying the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products that they have no documents to report. FDA anticipates it should take no longer than 30 minutes to draft such a response and send to FDA. The total one-time hourly burden to submit this letter to FDA is estimated to be 55 hours (30 minutes × 110 manufacturers).
FDA estimates that there are approximately 10 tobacco product manufacturers who may have documents meeting the criteria of this information collection request. Because the volume of responsive documents each of these respondents may have will likely vary, the corresponding time burden for each respondent to satisfy this information collection request will also vary. Therefore, FDA estimates that these 10 respondents will average approximately 230 hours each to satisfy the requirements of this section 904(b) request. The total one-time hourly burden to locate and send documents meeting the requirements of this request is estimated to be 2,300 hours (230 hours × 10 manufacturers). The total one-time hourly burden for this collection of information is 2,355 hours (55 hours + 2,300 hours).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 24, 2010.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
Denver Presley Jr., Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796–3793.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Fresh-cut fruits and vegetables are fruits and vegetables that have been processed by peeling, slicing, chopping, shredding, coring, trimming, or mashing, with or without washing or other treatment, prior to being packaged for consumption. The methods by which produce is grown, harvested, and processed may contribute to its contamination with pathogens and, consequently, the role of the produce in transmitting foodborne illness. Factors such as the high degree of handling and mixing of the product, the release of cellular fluids during cutting or mashing, the high moisture content of the product, the absence of a step lethal
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) prohibits the distribution of adulterated food in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331 and 342). In response to the increased consumption of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables and the potential for foodborne illness associated with these products, FDA recognizes the need for guidance specific to the processing of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. The guidance document entitled “Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables,” which is available at:
The guidance provides information and recommended procedures designed to help fresh-cut produce processors minimize microbial food safety hazards. The recommended procedures contained in the guidance are voluntary. Both FDA and fresh-cut produce processors will use and benefit from the information collected.
Two general recommendations in the guidance are for operators to develop and implement both a written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) plan and a Sanitary Standard Operation Procedures (SSOPs) plan. SOPs and SSOPs are important components to properly implemented and monitored cGMPs that are required for processed food operations under part 110. Other recommended programs that require documentation and recordkeeping are recall and traceback programs. In the event of a food safety concern, processors who adopt these recommended programs will be prepared to recall products from the market place or be able to trace back fresh produce, which might be implicated in a foodborne illness outbreak, to its source. Fresh-cut produce processors are also asked to consider the application of Hazards Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles or comparable preventive control programs to the processing of fruits and vegetables. FDA, other Federal and State food agencies, industry, and food establishments have found such preventive control programs, when properly designed and maintained by the establishment's personnel, to be valuable in managing the safety of food products.
FDA's fresh-cut guidance represents the agency's recommendations to industry based on the current state of science. Following the recommendations set forth in the fresh-cut guidance is the choice of each individual fresh-cut operation, plant, or processor. FDA estimates the burden of the guidance on industry by assuming that those in the fresh-cut industry who do not currently follow the recommendations put forth in the guidance will find it of value to do so. Therefore, the estimates of the burden associated with the issuance of the guidance represent the upper bound estimate of burden; the burden if every fresh-cut plant, processor, or operation that does not follow the recommendations of the guidance should choose to do so.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Estimates of the paperwork burden to the fresh-cut industry are based on information received from a fresh-cut processor who has developed and maintained these programs and information from a fresh-cut produce industry trade association. Because of the small number of fresh-cut processors, the agency is able to extrapolate data from industry programs to calculate the total estimated upper bound burdens (
The burden to industry of developing and maintaining the activities recommended in FDA's fresh-cut guidance will vary considerably among fresh-cut processors, depending on the type and number of products involved, the sophistication of the equipment or instruments (e.g., those that automatically monitor and record food safety controls), and the type of controls monitored under any individual preventive control program, such as critical control points (CCPs) monitored under a HACCP program.
In 2007, FDA estimated that there were 250 fresh-cut plants in operation in the United States, and that approximately 10 new firms enter the fresh-cut industry each year (72 FR
Two general recommendations in the guidance are for operators to develop and implement both a written SOPs plan and a written SSOPs plan. SOPs describe in writing the performance of the day-to-day operations of a processing plant. Examples of activities that would fall under SOPs would be developing written specifications for agricultural inputs, ingredients, and packaging materials; production steps for the processing and packaging operations; instructions for packaging and storage activities; and procedures for equipment maintenance, calibration, and replacement and facility maintenance and upkeep; and maintaining SOP records on product processing and distribution activities.
SSOPs provide written instructions or procedures for sanitary practices developed for each specific sanitation activity in and around the facility. Sanitation activities include procedures for cleaning equipment, food-contact surfaces, and plant facilities; chemical use and storage; cleaning equipment maintenance, use, and storage; pest control; and maintaining SSOP records for the activities. From communication with the fresh-cut industry, we know that existing fresh-cut processors already have developed SOPs and SSOPs. We therefore consider the development of SOPs and SSOPs to be “usual and customary” for manufacturers and processors in the fresh-cut industry (
FDA recommends that facilities not only develop but also maintain SOPs and SSOPs. Implementation and maintenance of SOPs and SSOPs include maintaining daily records for each of the firm's operational days for the following activities: Inspection of incoming ingredients, such as the fresh produce and packaging material; facility and production sanitation inspections; equipment maintenance, sanitation, and visual safety inspections; equipment calibration, e.g., checking pH meters; facility and premises pest control audits; temperature controls during processing and in storage areas; and audits of ingredients, food contact surfaces, and equipment for microbiological contamination. Of the 280 fresh-cut processors, we estimate that well over half have SOP and SSOP maintenance programs in place. Therefore, for purposes of estimating the annual recordkeeping burden for SOP and SSOP maintenance programs, the agency assumed that 40 percent of the existing processors, or 112 firms, and the 10 new firms do not have SOP and SSOP maintenance programs in place. FDA estimates the recordkeeping burden for SOP and SSOP maintenance programs by assuming that these 122 firms will choose to implement such a maintenance strategy as a result of the recommendations in the fresh-cut guidance document.
A typical fresh-cut processing plant operates about 255 days per year. For an 8-hour shift, assuming the ingredients are received twice during that time, under the recommendations in the guidance, there would be about 13 records kept (2 for inspecting incoming ingredients; 2 for inspecting the facility and production areas once every 4 hours; 3 records for equipment (maintenance, sanitation, and visual inspections for defects); 1 for calibrating equipment; 2 temperature recording audits (1 time for each of the 2 processing runs); and 3 microbiological audits (ingredients, food contact surfaces, and equipment)). Therefore, the annual frequency of recordkeeping for SOPs and SSOPs is calculated to be 3,315 times (255 × 13) per year per firm; 122 firms will be performing these activities to generate a total 404,430 records (3,315 × 122) annually, assuming all firms choose to follow the recommendations on keeping records.
The total time to record observations for SOP and SSOP maintenance is estimated to take 4 minutes or 0.067 hours per record, and the number of records maintained is 404,430. Therefore, the total annual burden in hours for 122 processors to maintain their SOP and SSOP records is approximately 27,097 hours (404,430 × 0.067). The maintenance burden for these 122 firms, along with the annual maintenance burden of audits or testing, is estimated in row 1 of table 1 of this document. Again, these figures assume that all firms choose to follow the recommendations on recording observations.
We recommend that fresh-cut processors establish and maintain written traceback procedures to respond to food safety hazard problems when they arise and establish and maintain a written contingency plan for use in initiating and effecting a recall. In order to facilitate tracebacks and recalls, we recommend that processors establish a program that documents and tracks fresh-cut products back to the source of their raw ingredients, and keep records of product identity and specifications, the product in inventory, and where, when, to whom, and how much of the product is shipped.
Traceback programs are used for those times when a food safety problem has been identified or a product has been implicated in a foodborne illness outbreak. The burden to develop a traceback program is a one-time activity estimated to take approximately 20 hours. In 2007, we previously estimated that firms in the industry would choose to begin a traceback program after the guidance was made available and estimated that the 250 existing fresh-cut firms and the 10 new businesses expected to enter the industry annually from 2007 to 2010 would spend 5,200 hours (250 × 20) on this activity. Accordingly, we only need to estimate the burden of this one-time activity on the 10 new businesses expected to enter the industry annually in the next 3 years. We estimate that the 10 new firms will spend 20 hours each preparing a traceback program, for a total of 200 hours (10 × 20). The burden estimate of developing a traceback program is shown in row 2 of table 1 of this document.
Traceback program adjustments or revisions may, or may not, be needed annually. Firms may test their traceback programs yearly to see if adjustments are needed to maintain traceback capabilities. Evaluating and updating traceback programs is estimated to take 40 hours to complete. The annual burden of maintaining a traceback program is estimated for the 280 existing firms in the industry plus the 10 firms new to the industry that may decide to implement this type of program. Assuming that each firm completes this exercise once a year, the total maintenance burden of traceback programs is 11,600 hours yearly (290 × 40). This burden estimate is shown in row 3 of table 1 of this document.
The fresh-cut guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The recommendations in this document regarding establishing and maintaining
When properly designed and maintained by the establishment's personnel, a preventive control program is a valuable program for managing the safety of food products. A common preventive control program used by the fresh-cut industry is a HACCP system. A HACCP system allows managers to assess the inherent risks and identify hazards attributable to a product or a process, and then determine the necessary steps to control the hazards. Monitoring and verification steps, which include recordkeeping, are included in the HACCP system to ensure that potential risks are controlled. We use HACCP as an example of a preventive control program that a firm may choose based on the recommendations in the guidance to estimate the burden of developing, implementing, and reviewing a preventive control program.
FDA estimated the paperwork burden of developing and implementing a HACCP plan based on a plan with two CCPs. The number of CCPs may vary depending on how the processor chooses to identify the CCPs for a particular operation. Developing a HACCP plan is a one-time activity that is estimated to take 100 hours based on a trained HACCP team working on the plan full time. The HACCP team identifies the CCPs and measures needed to control them, and then identifies the approach needed to verify the effectiveness of the controls. During this plan development period, the firm chooses the records to be kept and information and observations to be recorded. This is a one-time process during the first year.
In 2007, we previously estimated that, of the estimated 250 fresh-cut processors, approximately 50 percent of the firms already have HACCP plans in place. We therefore assumed that the remaining fresh-cut processors (125 existing firms plus the 10 new firms), would voluntarily develop a HACCP plan, and estimated that 135 processors would spend 13,500 hours (135 × 100) to develop their individual HACCP plans. Accordingly, we only need to estimate the burden of this one-time activity on the 10 new businesses expected to enter the industry annually in the next 3 years. We estimate that the 10 new firms will spend 100 hours each to develop their individual HACCP plans, for a total of 1,000 hours (10 × 100). This burden estimate is shown in row 4 of table 1 of this document.
After the HACCP plan is developed, the frequency for recordkeeping for implementing or maintaining daily records is estimated to be 510 records per year. (This is based on a firm choosing to maintain daily records for 2 CCPs for one 8-hour shift per day for each of the estimated 255 operational days per year.) The total time to record observations for the CCPs was estimated to take 4 minutes or 0.067 hours per record. Therefore, the total annual records kept by 145 firms (the 135 firms plus the 10 new businesses expected to enter the industry) is 73,950 (510 × 145), and the total hours required are 4,955 (73,950 records × 0.067 hours per record = 4,954.65, rounded to 4,955). This annual burden is shown in row 5 of table 1 of this document.
After the HACCP plan has been developed and implemented, we recommend that the plan is reviewed regularly to ensure that it is working properly. Fresh-cut processors are estimated to review their HACCP plans four times per year (once per quarter). Assuming that it takes each of the 145 firms 4 hours per review each quarter, the total burden of this activity, for firms that choose to review their plans annually, is 2,320 (145 × 4 × 4) hours per year. This annual burden is shown in row 6 of table 1 of this document.
Administration on Developmental Disabilities, ACF, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces that the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) has awarded three single-source expansion supplements for data collection, analyses, and reporting.
The following projects will be funded:
The Department of Health and Human Services has created the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee and is seeking nominations for this committee. As specified in Public Law 111–148 (“Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”) the Committee will: (a) Develop a summary of advances in pain care research supported or conducted by the Federal agencies relevant to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of pain and diseases and disorders associated with pain; (b) identify critical gaps in basic and clinical research on the symptoms and causes of pain; (c) make recommendations to ensure that the activities of the National Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies are free of unnecessary duplication of effort; (d) make recommendations on how best to disseminate information on pain care; and (e) make recommendations on how to expand partnerships between public entities and private entities to expand collaborative, cross-cutting research.
Membership on the committee will include six (6) non-Federal members from among scientists, physicians, and other health professionals and six (6) non-Federal members of the general public who are representatives of leading research, advocacy, and service organizations for individuals with pain-related conditions. Members will serve overlapping three year terms. It is anticipated that the committee will meet at least once a year.
The Department strives to ensure that the membership of HHS Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that the views of women, all ethnic and racial groups, and people with disabilities are represented on HHS Federal advisory committees and, therefore, the Department encourages nominations of qualified candidates from these groups. The Department also encourages geographic diversity in the composition of the Committee. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.
Nominations are due by COB November 26, 2010, and should be sent to Amy Adams, PhD, NIDCR/NIH, 31 Center Drive, Room 5B55, MSC–2190, Bethesda MD 20892–2190,
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools.” This draft guidance describes the qualification process for drug development tools (DDTs) intended for potential use, over time, in multiple drug development programs. The draft guidance provides a framework for interactions between the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and DDT sponsors to support work towards qualification of an identified DDT and creates a mechanism for formal review of data by CDER to qualify the DDT and ensure that the evaluation is comprehensive and reliable.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Shaniece Gathers, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, rm. 4555, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–2600.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools.” In March 2006, FDA issued the “Critical Path Opportunities Report” and the “Critical Path Opportunities List.” In these reports, FDA described six key areas along the critical path to improved therapies, and a list of specific opportunities for advancement within these topic areas. The opportunities report noted that a new product
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on the qualification process for DDTs . It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft 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 312.30, 21 CFR 314.50(d)(5), and 21 CFR 314.126(b)(6) have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910–0001 and 0910–0014.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Rd., Bethesda, MD 20814.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Martha Monser, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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
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.
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: Form I–600/I–600A, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative and Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition; OMB Control No. 1615–0028.
The Department of Homeland Security, 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 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 November 24, 2010. 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 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 Products Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC 20529–2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202–272–8352 or via e-mail at
(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,
(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 Products Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529–2020; Telephone 202–272–8377.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I–360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant; OMB Control No. 1615–0020.
The Department of Homeland Security, 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 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 November 24, 2010. 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 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 Products Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC 20529–2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202–272–8352 or via e-mail at
(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,
(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 Products Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529–2020; Telephone 202–272–8377.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of North Carolina (FEMA–1942–DR), dated October 14, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 14, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of North Carolina resulting from severe storms, flooding, and straight-line winds associated with the remnants of Tropical Storm Nicole during the period of September 27 to October 1, 2010, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, W. Montague Winfield, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of North Carolina have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Beaufort, Bertie, Craven, Hertford, Onslow, and Tyrrell Counties for Individual Assistance.
All counties within the State of North Carolina are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA–1943–DR), dated October 14, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 14, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New York resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and straight-line winds on September 16, 2010, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Philip E. Parr, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of New York have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Kings, Queens, and Richmond Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of New York are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA–1941–DR), dated October 13, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 13, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Minnesota resulting from severe storms and flooding beginning on September 22, 2010, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Direct Federal assistance is authorized.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lawrence Sommers, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Minnesota have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Blue Earth, Cottonwood, Dodge, Faribault, Freeborn, Goodhue, Jackson, Lincoln, Lyon, Martin, Mower, Murray, Olmsted, Pipestone, Rice, Rock, Steele, Wabasha, Waseca, Watonwan, and Winona Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Minnesota are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA–1930–DR), dated July 29, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 29, 2010.
Boone, Calhoun, and Shelby Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA–1941–DR), dated October 13, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this declared disaster is closed effective October 14, 2010.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota (FEMA–1941–DR), dated October 13, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 13, 2010.
Brown, Carver, Le Sueur, Nicollet, Nobles, Redwood, Sibley, and Yellow Medicine Counties for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina (FEMA–1942–DR), dated October 14, 2010, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 14, 2010.
Brunswick, Jones, Pender, and Pitt Counties for Individual Assistance.
Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer, HUD.
Notice of technical correction.
On September 20, 2010, HUD posted on
The revised CoC NOFA along with the corrected Appendix A can be found and downloaded from
For questions concerning this technical correction, please contact HUD's Homeless Resource Exchange (HRE) Help Desk at
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability and notice of public hearing of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is notifying the public that Reclamation and the State of Washington have prepared a Draft EIS for the Odessa Subarea Special Study. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) is a joint lead with Reclamation in the preparation of this Draft EIS, which will also be used to comply with requirements of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
The purpose of Reclamation's Odessa Subarea Special Study is to evaluate alternatives to replace groundwater supply with surface water to irrigate existing, groundwater-irrigated acres in the Odessa Ground Water Management Subarea. Measurements of groundwater levels in wells have shown a substantial decline in much of the Odessa Subarea since the 1980s, which are the earliest available measurements. This has prompted public concern about the declining aquifers and associated economic and other effects, which resulted in a directive by the U.S. Congress and the Washington State legislature to investigate the problem.
Written or e-mailed comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted
Written comments on the Draft EIS may be submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia-Cascades Area Office, Attention: Charles Carnohan, Activity Manager, 1917 Marsh Road, Yakima, Washington 98901–2058. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
Charles Carnohan, Activity Manager, Telephone (509) 575–5848 x370. Information on this project can also be found at
• November 17, 2010, 3 p.m.–7 p.m., Coulee Dam, WA.
• November 18, 2010, 3 p.m.-7 p.m., Moses Lake, WA.
• Town of Coulee Dam Town Hall, 300 Lincoln Avenue, Coulee Dam, WA 99116.
• Grant County Advanced Technologies Center (ATEC) Building 1800, Big Bend Community College, 7611 Bolling Street NE., Moses Lake, WA 98837.
Meeting facilities are accessible to people with disabilities. People needing special assistance to attend and/or participate should contact Charles Carnahan at (509) 575–5848, extension 370, or mail him at the address in the
TTY users may dial 711 to obtain a toll free TTY relay. Spanish language interpretation requests should be made to Enedina Galvez at (509) 575–5848. Si necesita interpretacion para Espanol, por favor llame Enedina Galvez a (509) 575–5848.
Requests to make oral comments at the public hearing may be made at the hearing. In order to ensure that all those interested in providing oral comments have an opportunity to do so, speakers will be limited to 5 minutes. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter. Speakers will be called in the order indicated on the sign-in list for speaking. Speakers not present when called will be recalled at the end of the scheduled speakers. Speakers may provide written versions of their oral comments, or other additional written comments, for the hearing record. Longer comments should be summarized at the public hearing and submitted in writing either at the public hearing or identified as hearing comments and mailed within 7 days of the hearing date to Mr. Charles Carnohan as indicated under the
The Columbia Basin Project (CBP) is a multipurpose water development project in the central part of the state of Washington. The Grand Coulee Dam Project was authorized for construction by the Act of August 30, 1935, and reauthorized and renamed in the CBP Act of March 10, 1943. Congress authorized the CBP to irrigate a total of 1,029,000 acres; about 671,000 acres are currently irrigated.
Section 9(a) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 gave authority to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to approve a finding of feasibility and thereby authorize construction of a project upon submitting a report to the President and the Congress. The Secretary approved a plan of development for the CBP, known as House Document No. 172 in 1945. House Document No. 172 anticipated that development of the CBP would occur in phases over a 70-year period. Reclamation is authorized to implement additional development phases as long as the Secretary finds it to be economically justified and financially feasible. The Odessa Subarea Special Study is conducted under the authority of the CBP Act of 1943, as amended, and the Reclamation Act of 1939.
In response to the public's concern about the declining aquifer and associated economic and other effects, Congress has funded Reclamation to investigate this problem. Ecology has partnered with Reclamation by providing funding and collaborating on various technical studies.
The State, Reclamation, and irrigation districts signed the Columbia River Initiative Memorandum of Understanding (CRI MOU) in December 2004, to promote a cooperative process for implementing activities to improve Columbia River water management and water management within the CBP. The Odessa Subarea Special Study implements Section 15 of the CRI MOU, which states in part that, “The parties will cooperate to explore opportunities for delivery of water to additional existing agricultural lands within the Odessa Subarea.” In February 2006, the State legislature passed the Columbia River Water Resource Management Act (HB 2860) that directs Ecology to aggressively pursue development of water benefiting both instream and out-of-stream uses through storage, conservation, and voluntary regional water management agreements. Reclamation's Odessa Subarea Special Study is one of several activities identified in the legislation.
Reclamation has developed alternatives to replace the current and increasingly unreliable groundwater supplies used for irrigation with a surface supply as part of continued phased development of the CBP. Reclamation can only deliver water to lands authorized to receive CBP water. An estimated 170,000 acres within the Odessa Subarea are now being irrigated with groundwater with an estimated 140,000 of these acres eligible to receive CBP surface water.
Reclamation and Ecology are studying the potential to replace groundwater currently used for irrigation in the Odessa Subarea Special Study Area (Study Area) with CBP surface water. The alternatives being considered include the No Action Alternative as required by NEPA and SEPA, and eight action alternatives that address the Purpose and Need. The eight action alternatives fall within two categories:
The eight action alternatives consist of four partial replacement alternatives and four full replacement alternatives. The four alternatives within each of the two replacement alternative categories consist of variations in the water supply options that would be used. Four supply options are being considered that would use storage from Banks Lake, Lake Roosevelt, or a new Rocky Coulee Reservoir, either individually or in combination, as follows: Option A— Banks Lake, would use storage in and additional drawdowns from Banks Lake,
The Draft EIS is available for public inspection at the following locations:
• Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia-Cascades Area Office, 1917 Marsh Road, Yakima, WA 98901–2058; telephone: (509) 575–5848.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706–1234; telephone: (208) 378–5012.
• Ritzville Public Library, 302 West Main, Ritzville, WA 99169.
• Basin City Branch, Mid-Columbia Library, Basin City, WA 99343.
• Benton-Franklin County Regional Law Library, Columbia Basin College, L Building, 2600 North 10th Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301.
• Big Bend Community College Library, Building 1800, 7611 Bolling Street, NE, Moses Lake, WA 98837.
• Columbia Basin College Library, 2600 North 20th Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301.
• Connell Branch, Mid-Columbia Library, 118 North Columbia Avenue, Connell, WA 99362.
• Coulee City Public Library, 405 West Main Street, Coulee City, WA 99115.
• Ephrata City Library, 45 Alder Street Northwest, Ephrata, WA 98823–2420.
• Grant County Law Library, 35 C Street, NW, Ephrata, WA 98823.
• Kahlotus Branch, Mid-Columbia Library, East 225 Weston, Kahlotus, WA 99335.
• Moses Lake Community Library, 418 East 5th Avenue, Moses Lake, WA 98837–1797.
• Odessa Public Library, 21 East 1st Avenue, Odessa, WA 99159.
• Othello Branch, Mid-Columbia Library, 101 East Main, Othello, WA 99344.
• Pasco Branch, Mid-Colombia Library, 1320 West Hopkins, Pasco, WA 99301.
• Quincy Public Library, 108 B Street Southwest, Quincy, WA 98848.
• North Central Regional Library, Royal City Library, 136 Camelia Street, Royal City, WA 99357.
• Seattle Public Library, Central Library, 1000 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
• Sprague Public Library, 119 West Second Street, Sprague, WA 99032.
• North Central Regional Library, Warden Library, 305 South Main Street, Warden, WA 98857.
• Washington State Library, 6880 Capitol Boulevard South, Olympia, WA 98504.
If you wish to comment, you may mail or e-mail your comments as indicated under the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA laws require that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive comments or requests for documents or comments on or before November 24, 2010.
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358–2280; or e-mail
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358–2104 (telephone); (703) 358–2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 10(a)(1)(A), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import biological specimens of Asian elephant (
The applicant requests a permit for the one-time acquisition of cell line specimens from gorilla (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358–2280; or e-mail
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358–2104 (telephone); (703) 358–2280 (fax);
On the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
On June 9, 2010, by unanimous vote, the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Commission established by the “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population,” signed at Washington, DC, on October 16, 2000, adopted a limit to the take of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population. The decision of the Commission is that the total take should be limited to 58 bears per year to be shared between the United States of America and the Russian Federation. Both the United States and the Russian Federation are proceeding to implement the decision of the Commission.
Terry D. DeBruyn, Polar Bear Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Office, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; by telephone (907–786–3800); or by facsimile (907–786–3816). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
The “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population,” signed at Washington, DC, on October 16, 2000 (the 2000 Agreement), provides legal protections for the population of polar bears found in the Chukchi-Northern Bering Sea. The 2000 Agreement is implemented in the United States through title V of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361
The 1973 Agreement is a multilateral treaty to which the United States and Russia are parties with other polar bear range states: Norway, Canada, and Denmark. While the 1973 Agreement provides authority for the maintenance of a subsistence harvest of polar bears and provides for habitat conservation, the 2000 Agreement specifically establishes a common legal, scientific, and administrative framework for the conservation and management of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population between the United States and Russia.
Because of the shared interest in this population of polar bears, which readily moves between U.S. and Russian Federation jurisdictions, a cooperative management regime for the subsistence harvest of bears is key to both providing for the long-term viability of the population as well as addressing the social, cultural, and subsistence interests of Alaska Natives and the native people of Chukotka. The 2000 Agreement requires the United States and the Russian Federation to manage and conserve polar bears based on reliable science and to provide for subsistence harvest opportunity by native peoples. For example, the 2000 Agreement provides a definition of “sustainable harvest” [which] “means a harvest level which does not exceed net annual recruitment to the population and maintains the population at or near its current level, taking into account all forms of removal, and considers the status and trend of the population, based on reliable scientific information”.
In addition, the 2000 Agreement establishes the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Commission (Commission), which functions as the bilateral managing authority to make scientific determinations, establish taking limits, and carry out other responsibilities important to the conservation and management of the polar bear. At its first meeting, held in Moscow, Russia, September 23–25, 2009, the Commission identified members of a Scientific Working Group (SWG) and tasked the SWG with reviewing the current level of subsistence take of polar bears. Recommendations from the SWG will help guide the research necessary to address present and future polar bear conservation issues in the shared Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population. The Commission also: (1) Identified habitat conservation as an important issue for the long-term conservation and management of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear; (2) identified ways to ensure full participation of native peoples in the conservation of the shared polar bear population; and (3) adopted rules of procedure for the Commission.
The first meeting of the SWG was held March 1–5, 2010, in Anchorage, Alaska. The SWG, tasked by the Commission with identifying a sustainable level of human-caused removals for the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population, recognized that reliable scientific information was critical to the identification and implementation of a sustainable level of removals. At the same time, the SWG acknowledged that the information necessary to derive accurate estimates of sustainable removals that meet subsistence interests in the two countries for the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population is currently limited. However, the SWG recognized that the current unlimited subsistence harvest in the United States and illegal killing of polar bears in Russia represented an immediate threat to the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population.
The SWG evaluated the plausible range of sustainable removals for subsistence purposes based on population models and assumed values of population size and growth rate. These parameters and resulting estimate of sustainable subsistence removals were based on expert opinion of the group. The SWG identified two management options for consideration by the Commission. Both management options are short term (1 to 3 years) and require reevaluation when new information becomes available. Management option 1 was a moratorium on the subsistence harvest of polar bears in the United States in conjunction with a continued moratorium on subsistence harvest in Russia. Such a regime would be contingent upon effective enforcement capabilities in both countries. Management option 2 was to establish a regulated subsistence harvest in both the United States and Russia. Such a regime would be contingent upon the enforcement of a regulated
The second meeting of the Commission took place June 7–10, 2010, in Anchorage, Alaska. During this meeting, the Commission evaluated the options provided by the SWG and determined that establishing a limit to the subsistence harvest of polar bears from the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population was needed. Based on the recommendation and risk assessment relative to hypothetical harvest levels and traditional knowledge of the native people, the Commission determined that no more than 58 polar bears per year may be taken, of which no more than 19 animals may be females from the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population. The Commission determined that all human-caused mortality,
The adoption of an annual take limit by the Commission is a significant accomplishment in the conservation and management of the shared Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population. The additional data obtained through enhanced management, especially in Russia where only limited information has been available, as well as increased monitoring of the previously unknown take of bears, will provide vital information and greater understanding of the status and trends of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population. Resultant data will enable the countries to develop a more effective and robust strategy for the conservation and management of this shared population.
The regulated subsistence harvest will also provide for the cultural, spiritual, and nutritional needs of the native people of Chukotka. It is anticipated that the illegal hunting of polar bears in Russia will decrease dramatically with the involvement of native Chukotkans in the implementation of subsistence harvest monitoring and management and enhanced legal enforcement. The Commission tasked the SWG with conducting an annual review of the annual subsistence take and providing a recommendation to the Commission each year confirming continuation of the existing subsistence harvest limit or specifying a new harvest limit recommendation.
Therefore, as discussed above, and as required by Section 507(b) of the MMPA, the Commission notified the Secretary of the Interior (by letter dated June 23, 2010, and received on July 1, 2010) of its determination to limit the annual take of polar bears from the Alaska-Chukotka population to no more than 58 animals, of which no more than 19 may be female, to be shared equally between the two jurisdictions. Each country is responsible for developing documents describing how the regulated harvest will be implemented to be reported at the next Commission meeting. The United States and Russian Federation will work together over the coming year to identify the legal requirements and documents needed to implement the identified harvest limit. This will be further discussed at the next Commission meeting in June 2011.
As required by Section 507(b) of the MMPA, notice of the Commission's determination of taking limits for the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population is hereby published in the
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission has received a complaint filed on behalf of Overland Storage, Inc. on October 19, 2010. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain automated media library devices. The complaint names as respondents BDT AG of Rottweil, Germany; BDT–Solutions GmbH & Co. KG of Rottweil, Germany; BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ) Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai Guangdong, China; BDT de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. of Tlaquepaque, Jalisco, Mexico; BDT Products, Inc. of Irvine, CA; Dell Inc. of Round Rock, TX; and International Business Machines Corp. of Armonk, NY.
The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five pages in length, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order in this investigation would negatively affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the potential orders;
(iii) indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are
(iv) indicate whether Complainant, Complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order and a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, five business days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2762”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. The Commission's rules authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means only to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 13) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting complainant's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation.
Jia Chen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–4737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on July 19, 2010, based on a complaint filed by eInstruction Corporation of Denton, Texas on May 12, 2010. 75 FR 41889 (Jul. 19, 2010). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain collaborative system products and components thereof by reason of infringement of various claims of United States Patent No. 6,930,673. The complaint named the following respondents: Promethean Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia, and Promethean Technology Shenzhen Ltd. of Shanghai, China.
On September 14, 2010, eInstruction moved to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add Promethean Ltd. of Blackburn, Lancashire, United Kingdom as a respondent to this investigation. On September 30, 2010, the ALJ issued the subject ID, Order No. 13, granting the motion to amend.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7 and Department of Justice policy, notice is hereby given that on October 14, 2010 a proposed Consent Decree with Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (“Georgia-Pacific”) was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in a case captioned
The proposed Consent Decree would resolve the United States' and the State's claims against Georgia-Pacific on terms and conditions set forth in the Consent Decree. Under the proposed settlement, Georgia-Pacific would stipulate that it is liable, along with other defendants, for performance of all required cleanup work at the Site downstream from a line across the River slightly upstream of the company's paper mill in the City of Green Bay. Georgia-Pacific would in turn receive a covenant not to sue and statutory contribution protection for portions of the River upstream from that line. As
The United States intends to hold a public meeting regarding the Consent Decree in the affected area, in accordance with Section 7003(d) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d). The meeting will be held at the Brown County Library, 515 Pine Street in Green Bay, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursday, November 18, 2010. Representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice, EPA, and WDNR will attend the public meeting to provide information and answer questions concerning the Consent Decree. Formal comments relating to the Consent Decree will not be accepted in oral form at the public meeting. Any such comments should be submitted in writing as described below.
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and mailed either electronically to
The Consent Decree may be examined at: (1) The offices of the United States Attorney, 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 530, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and (2) the offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 14th Floor, Chicago, Illinois. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Permanent Provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until December 27, 2010. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Christine Dixon, Denial Enforcement & NICS Intelligence Branch, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Lynn Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, Room 2E–502, 145 N Street, NE., Washington, DC 20530.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 22, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
In addition, AIM–USA, LLC has changed its name to Avionics Interface Technologies, LLC, Omaha, NE.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 8, 2010. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NSRP intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 13, 1998, NSRP filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 19, 2010. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on September 23, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NCOIC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 19, 2004, NCOIC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 1, 2010. A notice was published in the
Notice; comment request.
The Department of Labor (DOL) hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including, among other things, a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
(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,
The Pension Protection Act (PPA), Public Law 109–280, amended ERISA section 404(c) by adding subparagraph (c)(5)(A). The new subparagraph says that a participant in an individual account plan who fails to make investment elections regarding his or her account assets will nevertheless be treated as having exercised control over those assets so long as the plan provides appropriate notice (as specified) and invests the assets “in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary [of Labor].” Section 404(c)(5)(A) further requires the Department of Labor (Department) to issue corresponding final regulations within six months after enactment of the PPA. The PPA was signed into law on August 17, 2006.
The Department of Labor issued a final regulation under ERISA section 404(c)(5)(A) offering guidance on the types of investment vehicles that plans may choose as their “qualified default investment alternative”(QDIA). The regulation also outlines two information collections. First, it implements the statutory requirement that plans provide annual notices to participants and beneficiaries whose account assets could be invested in a QDIA. Second, the regulation requires plans to pass certain pertinent materials they receive relating to a QDIA to those participants and beneficiaries with assets invested in the QDIA as well to provide certain information on request. The ICRs are approved under OMB Control Number 1210–0132, which is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2010.
For additional information, see related notice published in the
For additional information, see related notice published in the
By application dated January 24, 2010, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Raleigh Film and Television Studios, LLC, Los Angeles, California (the subject firm). The Notice of determination was issued on January 14, 2010 and published in the
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that there was, during the relevant period, no increase in imports of services like or directly competitive with those supplied by the workers by either the subject firm or its customers, nor a shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the subject firm of like or directly competitive services. The investigation also revealed that the workers did not produce a component part or supply a service that was directly used by a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA.
The request for reconsideration alleges that the subject firm “is actively building large film studios in both Budapest, Hungary and Khazastan.”
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application dated June 11, 2010, a representative of the International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on April 12, 2010 and the Notice of Determination was published in the
The negative determination was based on the findings that there was no increase in imports by the firm or customers or a shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles like or directly competitive with the automobiles produced by the workers. The investigation also revealed that the workers did not produce a component part that was used by a firm that employed workers eligible to apply for TAA and that directly incorporated the component parts into the article that was the basis for the TAA certification.
The UAW's request for reconsideration states that production of standard cab and extended cab GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado vehicles shifted to an affiliated facility in Mexico. The request for reconsideration also includes new information in support of the allegation.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application dated February 3, 2010, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Notice of negative determination was issued on January 11, 2010 and published in the
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that there was no increase in imports of like or directly competitive articles by either the subject firm or its customers, and no shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of production of like or directly competitive articles. The investigation also revealed that the subject firm did not produce a component part that was used by a firm that employed workers eligible to apply for TAA and used the component parts in the production of the article that was the basis for the certification.
The workers, in the request for reconsideration, state that subject firm's competitors and customer have increased imports of like or directly competitive articles from China. The workers also allege that the articles produced at the subject firm include door component parts (“door jambs, door T–AST, door mull posts”) and window component parts (“replacement window grills”), and that those articles are being imported from China.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application sent to this office on April 8, 2010, the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local 1124, requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on February 19, 2010, and the Notice of Determination was published in the
The negative determination was based on the findings that neither a significant number nor proportion of workers at the subject facility was totally or partially separated, or threatened with such separation, during the relevant period.
The UAW asserts that the Department has misinterpreted the statute and states that “as many as 830 Visteon workers were notified that they would be replaced” and asserts that about 1,800 workers were employed at the subject firm.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application sent to this office on March 19, 2010, the United Steel Workers, Local 1–109, requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Notice of determination was issued on February 18, 2010, and was published in the
The negative determination was based on the findings that, during the relevant period, there was no increase in imports of articles like or directly competitive with the trailer axles produced by the subject firm, and no shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the subject firm of articles like or directly competitive with trailer axles. The investigation also revealed that the subject firm did not supply a component part to a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA and directly incorporated the component part into the finished article that was the basis for the TAA certification.
The request for reconsideration alleges that the subject firm used to manufacture “drive axels housings, steering arms, brake shoes and many other components in the heavy truck industry” in addition to trailer axels.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application dated February 16, 2010, workers requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on January 25, 2010, and the Notice of Determination was published in the
The negative determination was based on the findings that, during the relevant period, there was no increase in imports of articles like or directly competitive with the hardwood veneer produced by the subject firm, and no shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the subject firm of articles like or directly competitive with hardwood veneer. The investigation also revealed that the subject firm did not supply a component part to a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA and directly incorporated the component part into the finished article that was the basis for the TAA certification.
The request for reconsideration asserts that the Department has misinterpreted the statute to the detriment of the petitioning workers. Specifically, the workers allege “the Trade Act does not just look at whether the subject firm increased imports, but that imports increased in general.” In support of the request for reconsideration, the workers provided various articles regarding increased imports of like or directly competitive articles from China, Canada, and other countries.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of October 2010.
By application dated September 16, 2010, a worker requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on August 16, 2010 and the Notice of determination was published in the
The negative determination was based on the findings that the worker separations, or threat of separation, were not related to a shift in information technology support service abroad or increased imports of like or directly competitive services. The investigation also revealed that subject firm did not supply a service to a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA and that directly used the services in the production of an article or supply of service that was basis for the TAA certification.
The worker, in the request for reconsideration, disputes the Department's findings that the subject firm did not shift to India the supply of like or directly competitive services, and provides employment listings for various information technology support service positions at the subject firm's India facility as support documentation.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application dated September 23, 2010, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on September 3, 2010 and the Notice of Determination was published in the
The negative determination was based on the findings there were no imports of either customer service or publishing support services by the subject firm. The investigation also revealed that the subject firm did not produce an article or supply a service that was used by a firm with TAA-certified workers in the production of an article or supply service that was basis for TAA-Certification.
The request for reconsideration was filed on behalf of a specific worker group—workers of the Ad Production-Graphics Division of SuperMedia, Middleton, Massachusetts.
The request for reconsideration alleges that because the workers of the Ad Production-Graphics Division are separately identifiable from workers in other units of the subject firm, information related to the Customer Care Department and other units are not relevant and should not be the basis for denying the Ad Production-Graphics Division workers' eligibility to apply for TAA. The request asserts that the supply of services provided by the Ad Production-Graphics Division shifted to India.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application dated August 29, 2010, a worker requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm.
The negative determination was based on the finding that a shift of production to Canada in 2006 did not contribute importantly to separations at the subject firm because, during the period of the investigation, the subject firm did not produce an article; rather, the subject firm provided storage services for other subsidiaries of AMG, the parent company, and those storage services were shifted to an affiliate domestic facility. In addition, the subject firm did not supply services to a firm that employed a worker group that is currently eligible to apply for TAA.
The request for reconsideration alleges that the workers did not supply the services identified in the determination. The worker also states that the subject firm is in the process of permanently decommissioning and shifted operations to various facilities throughout the United States as well as Canada, Brazil, England, and Mexico.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application dated August 24, 2010, workers requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on July 30, 2010 and the Notice of Determination was published in the
The negative determination was based on the findings that there was no increase in imports of metal stampings (or like or directly competitive articles) by the subject firm or its customers, and no shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of article like or directly competitive with the metal stampings produced by the subject workers. The investigation also revealed that the workers did not produce a component part that was used by a firm that employed workers eligible to apply for TAA and used the component parts in the production of the article that was the basis for the certification.
The request for reconsideration alleges that the subject firm supplied component parts to firms in the automotive industry and asserts that increased imports of finished articles that contain foreign-made component parts like or directly competitive with the metal stampings produced by the subject firm contributed importantly to separations at the Kankakee, Illinois facility.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
By application dated September 21, 2010, a representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM&AW), District Lodge 751, requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of ASC Machine Tools, Inc., Spokane Valley, Washington (the subject firm). The Notice of negative determination was issued on August 11, 2010 and published in the
The negative determination was based on the findings that the subject firm sales decline was due to loss of export sales of foreign customers' bids to competitors outside the United States. The initial investigation also revealed decreased aggregate imports of metal cutting equipment during the relevant period and that the subject firm is not a supplier or downstream producer for any firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA.
The union official, in the request for reconsideration, alleges increased imports from Sen Fung Rollform Machinery Corporation in Taiwan and Metform International in Canada. The union official also articulates the concern that “the affected workers are being penalized due to the inconsistent customer base of the company” and requests that aggregate import data during 2007 and 2008 be considered.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department
By application dated September 14, 2010, workers requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Department's Notice of negative determination was issued on August 5, 2010 and published in the
The negative determination was based on the findings that the subject firm did not increase imports services supplied by the worker's firm and that there has not been a shift to a foreign country in the supply of services by the subject firm. The investigation also revealed that the subject firm does not supply a service that was directly used in the production of an article by a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA.
The request for reconsideration alleges that increased imports of articles (disk drives) that were produced directly using the services supplied by the subject workers (engineering) contributed importantly to separations at the subject firm.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's final decision expanding the recognition of the Canadian Standards Association as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory under 29 CFR 1910.7.
The expansion of recognition becomes effective on October 25, 2010.
MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N–3655, Washington, DC 20210, or phone (202) 693–2110.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby gives notice that it is expanding recognition of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). CSA's expansion covers the use of additional test standards. OSHA's current scope of recognition for CSA may be found in the following informational Web page:
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
CSA submitted an application, dated June 25, 2008, to expand its recognition to include five additional test standards. The NRTL Program staff determined that four of these standards (listed below) are “appropriate test standards” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). In connection with this request, NRTL Program staff did not perform any onsite review of CSA's recognized sites. The staff only performed a comparability analysis,
All public documents pertaining to the CSA application are available for review by contacting the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N–2625, Washington, DC 20210. These materials also are available online at
NRTL Program staff examined CSA's application, the comparability analysis, and other pertinent information. Based on this examination and the analysis, OSHA finds that CSA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions specified below. Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the recognition of CSA, subject to this limitation and these conditions.
OSHA limits the expansion of CSA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the following test standards, each of which OSHA determines is an appropriate test standard, within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c):
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials (
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as an American National Standard. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1–0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
CSA also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition, in addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7:
1. CSA must allow access to its facilities and records to ascertain continuing compliance with the terms of its recognition, and to perform investigations as OSHA deems necessary;
2. If CSA has reason to doubt the efficacy of any test standard it is using under this program, it must promptly inform the test standard-developing organization of this concern, and provide that organization with appropriate relevant information upon which its concern is based;
3. CSA must not engage in, or permit others to engage in, any misrepresentation of the scope or conditions of its recognition. As part of this condition, CSA agrees that it will allow no representation that it is either a recognized or an accredited Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) without clearly indicating the specific equipment or material to which this recognition applies and that its recognition is limited to certain products;
4. CSA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major changes in its operations as an NRTL, including details of these changes;
5. CSA will meet all the terms of its recognition and will always comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
6. CSA will continue to meet the requirements for recognition in all areas to which this recognition applies.
David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Sections 6(b) and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655 and 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4–2010 (75 FR 55355), and 29 CFR part 1911.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA–W) number issued during the period of October 4, 2010 through October 8, 2010.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) There has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and
(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) Notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) Notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(c) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1), or (c)(1) (employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued in cases where these petitions were not filed in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 90.11. Every petition filed by workers must be signed by at least three individuals of the petitioning worker group. Petitioners separated more than one year prior to the date of the petition cannot be covered under a certification of a petition under Section 223(b), and therefore, may not be part of a petitioning worker group. For one or more of these reasons, these petitions were deemed invalid.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of October 4, 2010 through October 8, 2010. Copies of these determinations may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, or mail to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 or
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's final decision expanding the recognition of FM Approvals LLC as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory under 29 CFR 1910.7.
The expansion of recognition becomes effective on October 25, 2010.
MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N–3655, Washington, DC 20210, or phone (202) 693–2110.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby gives notice that it is expanding the recognition of FM Approvals LLC (FM) as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). FM's expansion covers the use of additional test standards. OSHA's current scope of recognition for FM may be found in the following informational Web page:
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the legal requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
FM submitted an application, dated July 18, 2007, to expand its recognition to include 31 additional test standards. The NRTL Program staff deferred action on 20 of these standards pending resolution of technical issues. The staff determined that ten of the remaining 11 standards are “appropriate test standards” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). In connection with this request, NRTL Program staff did not perform an onsite review of FM's recognized sites. The staff only performed a comparability analysis,
All public documents pertaining to the FM application are available for review by contacting the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N–2625, Washington, DC 20210. These materials also are available online at
NRTL Program staff examined FM's application, the comparability analysis, and other pertinent information. Based on this examination and the analysis, OSHA finds that FM meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions specified below. Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the recognition of FM, subject to this limitation and these conditions.
OSHA limits the expansion of FM's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the following test standards, each of which OSHA determines is an appropriate test standard, within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c):
The designations and titles of these test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this notice.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials (
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy, any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
FM also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition, in addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7:
1. FM must allow OSHA access to its facilities and records to ascertain continuing compliance with the terms of its recognition, and to perform investigations as OSHA deems necessary;
2. If FM has reason to doubt the efficacy of any test standard it is using under this program, it must promptly inform the test standard-developing organization of this concern, and provide that organization with appropriate relevant information upon which its concern is based;
3. FM must not engage in, or permit others to engage in, any misrepresentation of the scope or conditions of its recognition. As part of this condition, FM agrees that it will allow no representation that it is either a recognized or an accredited Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) without clearly indicating the specific equipment or material to which this recognition applies and that its recognition is limited to certain products;
4. FM must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major changes in its operations as an NRTL, including details of these changes;
5. FM will meet all the terms of its recognition and will always comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
6. FM will continue to meet the requirements for recognition in all areas to which this recognition applies.
David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Sections 6(b) and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655 and 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4–2010 (75 FR 55355), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 4, 2010.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 4, 2010. Copies of these petitions may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, or mail, to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 or to
On January 21, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Department's Notice of affirmative determination was published in the
The initial negative determination based on the findings that the subject firm did not increase their imports of articles like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the workers during the relevant period and did not shift to a foreign country the production of like or directly competitive articles. Further, a survey of the major declining customer of the subject firm regarding
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that, in November 2008, the subject firm's largest customer transferred forty percent of its base contract for self check-out cabinets to a firm in Canada, and that the shift in supplier caused a downturn in business for the subject firm and the subsequent worker separations.
In response to the request, the Department sought further details about the circumstances surrounding the separations, especially the relationship between the separations and the alleged decline in sales to a customer which allegedly began to outsource like and directly competitive articles from a Canadian firm.
The reconsideration investigation revealed that the workers are separately identifiable by product line and that the subject firm sold two types of precision sheet metal fabrication to the customer named in the request for reconsideration: Sheet metal cabinets for self check-out units, and sheet metal parts to modify those basic cabinets to accommodate a variety of peripherals, such as computers and cameras.
The reconsideration investigation regarding self check-out units revealed that the subject firm's largest customer did transfer a significant proportion of its purchases of such cabinets for self check-out units to a foreign source; however, during the relevant period sales of these self check-out cabinets to this customer increased significantly.
Further, an analysis revealed that, although the subject firm's share of cabinet purchases by this customer declined, that customer so greatly increased the amount of its purchases of self check-out cabinets overall that its purchases of those items from the subject firm actually increased significantly.
Additionally, during the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm provided the Department with the names of its four largest declining customers.
During the course of the original investigation, customer surveys were conducted for two firms which accounted for 68% percent of the decline in sales of the subject firm during the first four months of 2009. Those surveys revealed that one company did not import any like or directly competitive articles during the relevant period, while the other decreased its imports of like and directly competitive articles by 98 percent during the same period.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department contacted a third company but did not survey the customer because of the relatively insignificant scale of the customer's decline. The fourth customer was the customer identified in the request for reconsideration. Because self check-out unit sales by the subject firm to this customer increased during the relevant period (as stated above) and the workers of the subject firm are separately identifiable by product line, the Department did not survey this customer.
After a careful review of information obtained during the reconsideration investigation and previously-submitted information, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Dawson Metal Company, Inc., Industrial Division, Jamestown, New York.
By application dated January 20, 2010, workers requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of United Auto Workers Local 1999, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (the subject firm). The determination was signed on November 23, 2009. The Notice of determination was published in the
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The negative determination of the petition filed on behalf of workers at United Auto Workers Local 1999, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was based on the findings that the workers at the subject firm did not supply services that support the production at the General Motors sport utility vehicle (SUV), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma plant, as alleged in the petition, and are not adversely-affected secondary workers.
In the request for reconsideration, the workers rely solely on the subject firm's relationship with the General Motors SUV plant in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Workers at that facility had been certified eligible to apply for TAA under TA–W–63,965 (issued on October 8, 2008). The workers in the request for reconsideration states that “our firm is still operating and servicing General Motors and its workers/retirees” even though the plant at issue was permanently closed in September 2008.
The workers also stated they are seeking TAA certification as secondarily-affected workers because the subject firm “was and is a suppler or downstream producer to the General Motors SUV plant which employed a group of workers who received certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act.”
The initial investigation by the Department, however, and the documentation of the subject firm's activities which accompanied the request for reconsideration, reveal that the subject firm is not a Supplier or Downstream Producer to the General Motors SUV plant at issue. Specifically, the headings given to the documentation which accompanied the request for reconsideration illustrate that the subject firm did not supply services to the General Motors SUV plant in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma that were directly used in the production of the article that was the basis for certification of TA–W–63,965. For example, under the overall heading of “Advertising, Publicity and Community Awareness” was “Annual Oklahoma State Fair Booth”; “Parades”; “Trade Shows” and under the overall heading of “Employee Classes/Services” was “Pre- and Post-Retirement Classes”; “Job
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
By application dated August 26, 2010, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Claim Management Services, Inc. Operations, a Division of Wellpoint, Inc., Green Bay, Wisconsin (the subject firm). The Notice of determination was signed on August 16, 2010, and was published in the
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The negative determination of the TAA petition filed on behalf of workers at the subject firm was based on the findings that there was neither a shift in the supply of claims processing and customer service functions to a foreign country, nor imports of claims processing and customer service functions during the relevant period, and that the subject firm is not a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that the workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA based on a shift to a foreign country. The petitioner also noted that workers at other locations of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield are eligible to apply for TAA, and urged the Department to “take a look at the entire company and review this again and you will find that they have outsourced to [a foreign country].”
The Department has confirmed that workers at several other locations of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield are eligible to apply for TAA on the basis of a shift to a foreign country; however, the workers at the subject facility supply services that are distinctly different and separate from those supplied by workers at the other Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield locations, and the work that was performed by Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield workers who are eligible to apply for TAA based on a shift abroad had never been performed at the subject facility.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
By application dated August 12, 2010 petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding the eligibility of workers and former workers of TRG Insurance Solutions, Beckley, West Virginia, to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance. On August 30, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration. The Department's Notice was published in the
Based on the information obtained during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that the subject firm shifted to a foreign country a significant proportion of the services like or directly competitive with the insurance call center services supplied by the subject workers.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained during the reconsideration investigation, I determine that workers of TRG Insurance Solutions, Beckley, West Virginia, who are engaged in employment related to the supply of insurance call center services, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223
All workers of TRG Insurance Solutions, Beckley, West Virginia, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 7, 2009, through two years from the date of this revised certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
On January 25, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of Xilinx, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico (the subject firm). The Department's Notice was published in the
In the request for reconsideration, workers alleged that the subject firm has shifted abroad the supply of services like and directly competitive with the internal-use engineering services supplied by the Albuquerque, New Mexico facility and provided documentation in support of the allegation. The new documentation included a February 29, 2008, advertisement for a product engineer/senior product engineer for one offshore location of Xilinx, Inc.; and a job advertisement dated May 19, 2009, for integrated circuit test engineers and test equipment engineers for a Product and Test Engineering Department of a foreign Xilinx facility.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department carefully reviewed the new information and previously submitted information, and sought clarification from the subject firm.
Based on the information obtained during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that a significant proportion or number of workers at the subject firm was totally or partially separated, or threatened with such separation; that the subject firm shifted to a foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive with the engineering services supplied by workers at the subject firm; and that the subject worker group includes on-site leased workers of TEKsystems.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I determine that workers of Xilinx, Inc., including on-site leased workers of TEKsystems, Albuquerque, New Mexico, who are engaged in employment related to the supply of internal-use engineering services, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of Xilinx, Inc., including on-site leased workers of TEKsystems, Albuquerque, New Mexico, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 7, 2008, through two years from the date of this certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
By application dated June 1, 2010 a union official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding the eligibility of workers and former workers of AGY Holding Corporation, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). On June 21, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration. The Department's Notice of affirmative determination was published in the
Workers at the subject firm are engaged in employment related to the production of fine yarns and specialty glass yarns. The worker group does not include on-site leased workers.
Based on the information obtained during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that the subject firm shifted abroad a meaningful proportion of production of articles like or directly competitive with the fine yarns and/or specialty glass yarns produced by the workers.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained during the reconsideration investigation, I determine that workers of AGY Holding Corporation, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, who are engaged in employment related to the production of fine yarns and specialty glass yarns, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of AGY Holding Corporation, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 4, 2008, through two years from the date of this revised certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101–6, announcement is made for the following committee meeting, to discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters.
The meeting will be held on November 17, 2010 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105, Washington, DC 20408.
This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, November 12, 2010. ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the location of the meeting.
David O. Best, Senior Program Analyst, ISOO, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20408, telephone number (202) 357–5123, or at
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than three years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by December 27, 2010 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292–7556; or send e-mail to
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
November 17, 2010; 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. (EST).
Welcome/Introductions; OIRM/CIO/BFA Updates; Human Resources/Capital Topic; Committee Discussion: Prepare for Meeting with NSF Deputy Director; Discussion with Deputy Director; Closing Committee Discussion.
IT Policy Issues; Open Government; International Facilities Subcommittee; Committee Expectations/Closing Discussions.
National Science Foundation.
Announcement of membership of the National Science Foundation's Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board.
This announcement of the membership of the National Science Foundation's Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board is made in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
Comments should be addressed to Interim Director, Division of Human Resource Management and Chief Human Capital Officer, National Science Foundation, Room 315, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
Dr. Judith S. Sunley at the above address or (703) 292–8180.
The membership of the National Science Foundation's Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board is as follows:
National Science Foundation.
Announcement of Membership of the National Science Foundation's Performance Review Board for the Office of Inspector General and the National Science Board Office Senior Executive Service positions.
This announcement of the membership of the National Science Foundation's Office of Inspector General and National Science Board Office Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board is made in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
Comments should be addressed to Interim Director, Division of Human Resource Management and Chief Human Capital Officer, National Science Foundation, Room 315, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
Dr. Judith S. Sunley at the above address or (703) 292–8180.
The membership of the National Science Board's Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board is as follows:
Plus two members to be selected from the IG community.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission or NRC) is considering an application for the renewal of operating licenses NPF–003, which authorizes FirstEnergy Nuclear Power Operating Company (FENOC), to operate the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit 1, at 2817 megawatts thermal. The renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate the DBNPS, for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current license. DBNPS is located near Toledo, OH. The current operating license expires on April 22, 2017.
FENOC submitted the application dated August 27, 2010, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 54 (10 CFR part 54) to renew operating license NPF–003. A notice of receipt and availability of the license renewal application (LRA) was published in the
The Commission has determined that FENOC has submitted sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, and 51.53(c), to enable the staff to undertake a review of the application, and the application is therefore acceptable for docketing. The Commission will retain the current Docket No. 50–346, for Operating License No. PF–003. The determination to accept the LRA for docketing does not constitute a determination that a renewed license should be issued, and does not preclude the NRC staff from requesting additional information as the review proceeds.
Before issuance of the requested renewed license, the NRC will have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC may issue a renewed license on the basis of its review if it finds that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to: (1) Managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified as requiring aging management review, and (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as requiring review, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis (CLB) and that any changes made to the plant's CLB will comply with the Act and the Commission's regulations.
Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will prepare an environmental impact statement that is a supplement to the Commission's NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” dated May 1996. In considering the LRA, the Commission must find that the applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 have been satisfied, and that matters raised under 10 CFR 2.335 have been addressed. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental scoping process, the staff intends to hold public scoping meetings. Detailed information regarding the environmental scoping meetings will be the subject of a separate
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this
Requests for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 and is accessible from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 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, taking into consideration the limited scope of matters that may be considered pursuant to 10 CFR parts 51 and 54. The petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) 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 set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 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 of each contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention 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 requestor/petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The requestor/petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
The Commission requests that each contention be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: (1) Technical (primarily related to safety concerns); (2) environmental; or (3) miscellaneous.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more requestors/petitioners seek to co-sponsor a contention or propose substantially the same contention, the requestors/petitioners must jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requestors/petitioners with respect to that contention.
All documents filed in 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 comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on 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 EIE, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC 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 NRC guidance available on the NRC 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 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 NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Detailed information about the license renewal process can be found under the Nuclear Reactors icon at
The NRC staff has verified that a copy of the license renewal application is also available to local residents near the site at the Ida Rupp Public Library, 310 Madison Street, Port Clinton, OH 43452 and the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library, 325 North Michigan Street, Toledo, OH 43604.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of October 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 2010.
The Commission's National Office at One Lafayette Centre, 1120 20th Street, NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036–3457.
This oral argument will be open to the public.
The Commission will be hearing oral argument in the case of
John X. Cerveny, Deputy Executive Secretary, (202) 606–5400.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service filing to add Priority Mail Contract 29 to the competitive product list. The Postal Service has also filed a related contract. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with the filing.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a contract related to the proposed new product pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. The contract has been assigned Docket No. CP2011–4.
1. Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 09–6, originally filed in Docket No. MC2009–25, authorizing certain Priority Mail contracts;
2. Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
3. Attachment C—a proposed change in the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list;
4. Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
5. Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
6. Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and supporting documents under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Brian G. Denneny, Acting Manager, Sales and Communications, Expedited Shipping, asserts that the service to be provided under the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the specific Priority Mail Contract 29, under seal. It maintains that the contract and related financial information, including the customer's name and the accompanying analyses that provide prices, terms, conditions, cost data, and financial projections should remain under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2011–3 and CP2011–4 for consideration of the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 29 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642 and 39 CFR part 3015 and 39 CFR 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 13, 2010.
The Commission appoints Paul L. Harrington to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2011–3 and CP2011–4 for consideration of the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Paul L. Harrington is appointed to serve as officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 13, 2010.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service filing to add Priority Mail Contract 28 to the competitive product list. The Postal Service has also filed a related contract. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with the filing.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a contract related to the proposed new product pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. The contract has been assigned Docket No. CP2011–3.
1. Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 09–6, originally filed in Docket No. MC2009–25, authorizing certain Priority Mail contracts;
2. Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
3. Attachment C—a proposed change in the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list;
4. Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
5. Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
6. Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and supporting documents under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Brian G. Denneny, Acting Manager, Sales and Communications, Expedited Shipping, asserts that the service to be provided under the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the specific Priority Mail Contract 28, under seal. It maintains that the contract and related financial information, including the customer's name and the accompanying analyses that provide prices, terms, conditions, cost data, and financial projections should remain under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2011–2 and CP2011–3 for consideration of the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 28 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642 and 39 CFR part 3015 and 39 CFR 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 13, 2010.
The Commission appoints Paul L. Harrington to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2011–2 and CP2011–3 for consideration of the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Paul L. Harrington is appointed to serve as officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 13, 2010.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service filing to add Express Mail Contract 9 to the competitive product list. The Postal Service has also filed a related contract. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with the filing.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a contract related to the proposed new product pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. The contract has been assigned Docket No. CP2011–2.
1. Attachment A—a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 09–14, originally filed in Docket No. MC2010–5, authorizing certain Express Mail contracts;
2. Attachment B—a redacted copy of the contract;
3. Attachment C—a proposed change in the Mail Classification Schedule competitive product list;
4. Attachment D—a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32;
5. Attachment E—a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and
6. Attachment F—an application for non-public treatment of materials to maintain redacted portions of the contract and supporting documents under seal.
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Brian G. Denneny, Acting Manager, Sales and Communications, Expedited Shipping, asserts that the service to be provided under the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to institutional costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs.
The Postal Service maintains that the contract and related financial information, including the customer's name and the accompanying analyses that provide prices, terms, conditions, cost data, and financial projections should remain under seal.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2011–1 and CP2011–2 for consideration of the Request pertaining to the proposed Express Mail Contract 9 product and the related contract, respectively.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642 and 39 CFR part 3015 and 39 CFR 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than October 13, 2010. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Paul L. Harrington to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2011–1 and CP2011–2 for consideration of the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Paul L. Harrington is appointed to serve as officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than October 13, 2010.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new and/or currently approved information collection.
Submit comments on or before December 27, 2010.
Send all comments regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collection, to George Solomon, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Entrepreneurial Education, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
George Solomon, Office of Senior
The Office of Entrepreneurial Development (ED) needs to collect information on the impact of training programs delivered by both its resource partners—SCORE, SBDC and WBCs and focused initiatives like E200 using a uniform methodology in order to provide generally accepted outcome measures and to report to Congress and the President on these programs. Respondents are small business owners and potential small business owners from throughout the U.S. and the territories.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice of IDAP loan program interest rates.
This Notice announces the maximum allowable rates for Immediate Disaster Assistance Program (IDAP) loans.
Grady Hedgespeth, Director of Financial Assistance, at (202) 205–7562 or
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Farm Act), Public Law 110–246, enacted June 18, 2008, amended the Small Business Act (the Act) and authorized changes to make SBA's disaster assistance program more accessible to disaster victims. One provision included in the Farm Act requires SBA to implement an Immediate Disaster Assistance Program (IDAP) to provide interim loans to businesses affected by a disaster that meet the basic eligibility standards for a disaster loan authorized under section 7(b) of the Act. The provision authorizes SBA to provide an 85 percent guarantee on loans made by participating lenders for up to $25,000. The intent of the IDAP loan program is to provide bridge financing as quickly and as prudently as possible following a declared disaster while the business is awaiting approval for permanent financing through a direct disaster loan from SBA.
Agency regulations implementing the IDAP loan program state that the maximum interest rates an IDAP Lender may charge an IDAP Borrower during the Initial Period and Term Period will be published in the
Any future change to interest rates on IDAP Loans will be published in the
15 U.S.C. 657n and 13 CFR § 123.703(e).
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”).
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicants: CGMI, CEFOF, CELFOF, CCP I and CCP II, 388 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10013; Citibank, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10043; Citigroup Alternative, 731 Lexington Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10022; and Advisory Services, 222 Delaware Avenue, Wilmington, DE 19801.
Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6873, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a temporary order and a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Each of the Applicants is either an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup or is owned by an entity in which Citigroup has an indirect interest. Citigroup is a global financial holding company whose businesses provide a broad range of financial services. CGMI is registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and serves as principal underwriter for one or more registered investment companies (“Funds”). Citigroup Alternative and Advisory Services are registered as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and serve as investment advisers for one or more Funds. CEFOF, CELOF, Citibank, Citigroup Alternative, CCP I and CCP II (“ESC Advisers”) serve as investment advisers to certain employees' securities companies within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act, which provide investment opportunities for certain eligible employees, officers, directors and persons on retainer of Citigroup and its affiliates (“ESCs” and included in the term “Funds”).
2. On October 19, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”) entered a judgment against Citigroup (“Judgment”) in a matter brought by the Commission.
1. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a person who has been enjoined from engaging in or continuing any conduct or practice in connection with the purchase or sale of a security or in connection with activities as an underwriter, broker or dealer, from acting, among other things, as an investment adviser or depositor of any registered investment company or a principal underwriter for any registered open-end investment company, registered unit investment trust or registered face-amount certificate company. Section 9(a)(3) of the Act makes the prohibition in section 9(a)(2) applicable to a company, any affiliated person of which has been disqualified under the provisions of section 9(a)(2). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Applicants state that Citigroup is an affiliated person of each of the Applicants within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act. Applicants state that the entry of the Injunction results in Applicants being subject to the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the Act.
2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that the Commission shall grant an application for exemption from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) if it is established that these provisions, as applied to the Applicants, are unduly or disproportionately severe or that the Applicants' conduct has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption. Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking a temporary and permanent order exempting them and Covered Persons from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the Act.
3. Applicants believe they meet the standard for exemption specified in section 9(c). Applicants state that the prohibitions of section 9(a) as applied to the Applicants would be unduly and disproportionately severe and that the conduct of Applicants has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption from section 9(a).
4. Applicants state that the alleged conduct giving rise to the Injunction did not involve any of the Applicants acting in the capacity of investment adviser, subadviser or depositor to a Fund, or principal underwriter for any Fund, and no such Funds bought or held any securities issued by Citigroup during the period of misconduct alleged in the Complaint, other than with respect to index Funds. Applicants also state that none of the current or former directors, officers, or employees of the Applicants participated in the violative conduct alleged in the Complaint, with the exception of one employee of an Applicant. Applicants further state that the personnel at Citigroup who were involved in the violations alleged in the Complaint are either no longer employed at Citigroup or have had no and will not have any future involvement in providing advisory, subadvisory or depository services to the Funds, or principal underwriting services to the Funds.
5. Applicants state that the inability of the Applicants to continue to serve as investment adviser, depositor or principal underwriter to the Funds would result in potentially severe financial hardships for the Funds and their shareholders. The Applicants have distributed, or will distribute as soon as reasonably practical, written materials, including an offer to meet in person to discuss the materials, to the board of directors of each Fund, including the directors who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of such Fund, and their independent legal counsel as defined in rule 0–1(a)(6) under the Act, if any, regarding the Judgment, any impact on the Funds, and the application. The Applicants state they will provide the
6. Applicants also state that, if they were barred from continuing to serve as investment adviser or principal underwriter to the Funds, the effect on their businesses and employees would be severe. Applicants state that they have committed substantial resources to establish an expertise in providing services covered by section 9(a) of the Act to Funds. Applicants further state that prohibiting them from continuing to serve as investment adviser or principal underwriter to Funds would not only adversely affect their businesses, but would also adversely affect approximately 250 employees that are involved in those activities. Applicants also state that disqualifying the ESC Advisers from continuing to provide investment advisory services to ESCs is not in the public interest or in furtherance of the protection of investors. Because the ESCs have been formed for certain eligible, officers, directors and persons on retainer of Citigroup and its affiliates, it would not be consistent with the purposes of the ESC provisions of the Act or the ESC Order to require another entity not affiliated with Citigroup to manage the ESCs. In addition, participating employees of Citigroup and its affiliates subscribed for interests with the expectation that the ESCs would be managed by an affiliate of Citigroup.
7. Applicants previously have received exemptions under section 9(c) as the result of conduct that triggered section 9(a) as described in greater detail in the application.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation of, or administrative proceedings involving or against, Covered Persons, including without limitation, the consideration by the Commission of a permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act requested pursuant to the application or the revocation or removal of any temporary exemptions granted under the Act in connection with the application.
The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants have made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary exemption.
Accordingly,
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The current Participants in the Linkage Plan are CBOE, BATS, ISE, Nasdaq, BOX, Phlx, NYSE Amex, and NYSE Arca. The proposed amendment to the Plan would add C2 as a Participant in the Plan. C2 has submitted a signed copy of the Plan to the Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Plan regarding new Participants. Section 3(c) of the Plan provides for the entry of new Participants to the Plan. Specifically an Eligible Exchange
Section 4(b) of the Plan puts forth the process by which an Eligible Exchange may effect an amendment to the Plan. Specifically, an Eligible Exchange must: (a) Execute a copy of the Plan with the only change being the addition of the new participant's name in Section 3(a) of the Plan; and (b) submit the executed Plan to the Commission. The Plan then provides that such an amendment will be effective when the amendment is approved by the Commission or otherwise becomes effective pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608 thereunder.
The foregoing proposed Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 28, 2010, the Canadian Derivatives Clearing Corporation (“CDCC”), on behalf of the Bourse de Montréal, Inc. (“Bourse de Montréal”), submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Rule 9b–1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Rule 9b–1 under the Act provides that an options market must file five preliminary copies of an amended ODD with the Commission at least 30 days prior to the date when definitive copies of the amended ODD are furnished to customers, unless the Commission determines otherwise, having due regard to the adequacy of the information disclosed and the public interest and protection of investors.
The Commission has reviewed the amended ODD and finds, having due regard to the adequacy of the information disclosed, that it is consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest to allow the distribution of the amended ODD as of the date of this order.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The proposed rule change would provide a new service for clearing members that are parties to a Clearing Member Trade Assignment (“CMTA”) arrangement.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide a new service for clearing members that are parties to a CMTA arrangement. Clearing members electing to participate in the new service will authorize OCC to facilitate on a non-guaranteed basis settlement of commissions and fees
CMTA is the process by which an authorized executing clearing member directs the transfer of an exchange transaction to a designated account of a carrying clearing member. To correct mis-clears and other bona fide processing errors, an executing clearing member also may transfer to a carrying clearing member as a part of their CMTA arrangement positions that resulted from transactions that were directly cleared into an account of an executing clearing member but were intended for give-up to the carrying clearing member. Currently, fees and commissions that are owed by the carrying clearing member to the executing clearing member with respect to these transfers are tracked and billed bilaterally between the firms. This process, which has long been considered inefficient, results in increased collection times and reconciliation problems for the firms involved. At the request of the Roundtable, OCC has developed a centralized solution to reduce some of these inefficiencies. OCC therefore proposes to modify its systems and rules to provide for the non-guaranteed settlement of fees and commissions associated with position transfers effected pursuant to registered CMTA arrangements.
OCC proposes to add system functionality to support the calculation and non-guaranteed settlement of fees and commissions based on entries made by the executing clearing member. Firms desiring to make use of this functionality will be required to reregister their CMTA arrangement and specifically authorize OCC to make such settlements without any further authorization from the carrying clearing member. Accordingly, OCC is proposing to amend Rule 403, relating to CMTA processing, to provide that clearing members electing to use this new service must register that aspect of their CMTA arrangement with OCC. Such registration, when accepted by OCC's systems, will authorize an executing clearing member to make entries into OCC's systems with respect to fees and commissions subject to any system checks imposed by OCC.
Settlement of fees and commissions will be done on a non-guaranteed basis pursuant to changes being made to Rule 504. Rule 504 currently provides for OCC's money-only settlement service (proposed to be renamed “non-guaranteed settlement service”) through which clearing members may specifically authorize OCC to effect non-guaranteed settlements of monies owed between two firms relating to transactions cleared by OCC. A new provision will be added to Rule 504 in order to accommodate the settlement of fees and commissions pursuant to an effectively registered CMTA arrangement. The new provision will permit OCC, as agent, to calculate and effect settlement of the aggregate of such amounts based on entries made by the executing clearing member to the CMTA arrangement without any further consent of the carrying clearing member. OCC will have no obligation to verify the executing clearing member's entries, and any disputes between the firms regarding such amounts will have to be resolved between themselves. Settlements will occur the business day following the business day on which the executing clearing member inputs necessary information into OCC's
Finally, OCC proposes to insert another new provision into Rule 504. First, the new provision will reflect OCC's current practice of not processing non-guaranteed settlements until settlements pursuant to Rule 502 (for premium, mark-to-market, and cash exercise and assignment settlement amounts) and 605 (margin deficits) have been completed. Second, it will also permit OCC to defer processing of non-guaranteed settlements on a business day. Affected clearing members will be notified of OCC's decision and of the business day non-guaranteed settlements will be resumed. This authority will provide OCC with flexibility to defer processing non-guaranteed settlements on a given business day in the event a significant processing delay makes such action advisable or appropriate.
OCC states that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
OCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the proposed rule change. OCC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20549–1090.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.500 (“Trust Units”) to provide that the issuers of Trust Units listed or traded pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) may invest directly in investments comprising or otherwise based on any combination of futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, swap contracts, commodities and/or securities rather than solely in the assets of a trust, partnership, limited liability company, corporation or other similar entity constituted as a commodity pool that holds such investments. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.500 permits listing or trading pursuant to UTP of Trust Units, which are defined as securities that are issued by a trust or other similar entity that invests in the assets of a trust, partnership, limited liability company, corporation or other similar entity constituted as a commodity pool that holds investments comprising or otherwise based on any combination of futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, swap contracts, commodities and/or securities.
The American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”) (now known as NYSE Amex LLC (“NYSE Amex”)) initially had proposed to list the Fund and adopted Amex Rules 1600
In order to accommodate trading of Shares of the Fund on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.500(b)(2) to define the term “Trust Units” as a security that is issued by a trust or similar entity constituted as a commodity pool that holds investments comprising or otherwise based on any combination of futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, swap contracts, commodities and/or securities. The proposed rule change is substantially identical to that approved for NYSE Amex in the NYSE Amex Approval Order, except that proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.500(b)(2) continues to include the words “and/or securities”, which are not included in NYSE Amex Rule 1600. The Exchange represents that all representations regarding the Fund listed and traded on NYSE Amex, as described in the NYSE Amex Notice and NYSE Amex Approval Order, continue to apply.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can trade, on a UTP basis, shares of the Fund immediately. The Exchange believes that the immediate trading of shares of the Fund will promote competition among exchange markets trading such shares. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay to permit the Exchange to trade, on a UTP basis, shares of the Fund without delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 25, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05 to Exchange Rule 1012, Series of Options Open for Trading,
Currently, Commentary .05 to Exchange Rule 1012 permits strike price intervals of $.50 or greater beginning at $1.00 where the strike price is $3.50 or less, but only for option classes whose underlying security closed at or below $3.00 in its primary market on the previous trading day and which have national average daily volume that equals or exceeds 1000 contracts per day as determined by The Options Clearing Corporation during the preceding three calendar months. Further, the listing of $.50 strike prices is limited to options classes overlying no more than 5 individual stocks as specifically designated by the Exchange. The Exchange is currently restricted from listing series with $1 intervals within $0.50 of an existing strike price in the same series, except that strike prices of $2, $3, and $4 shall be permitted within $0.50 of an existing strike price for classes also selected to participate in both the $0.50 Strike Program and the $1 Strike Program.
The Exchange also proposes a corresponding amendment to Commentary .05(a)(i)(B) of Exchange Rule 1012 to add $5 to the list of strike prices permitted within $0.50 of an existing strike price in the same series for classes selected for both programs.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange stated that the number of $.50 strike options traded on the Exchange has continued to increase since the inception of the Program. The Exchange stated that the proposal would expand $.50 strike offerings to market participants and thereby should enhance their ability to tailor investing and hedging strategies and opportunities in a volatile marketplace. The Exchange further stated that it believes an expansion of the $.50 Strike Program would allow investors to better enhance returns and manage risk by providing them with significantly greater flexibility in the trading of equity options that overlie lower price stocks by allowing them to establish equity options positions that are better tailored to meet their investment, trading and risk. In addition, the Exchange represented that $0.50 strikes have had no impact on capacity.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal to expand the $.50 Strike Program should provide investors with added flexibility in the trading of equity options and further the public interest by allowing investors to establish equity options positions that are better tailored to meet their investment objectives. The Commission also believes that the proposal strikes a reasonable balance between the Exchange's desire to accommodate market participants by offering a wider array of investment opportunities and the need to avoid unnecessary proliferation of options series and the corresponding increase in quotes. The Commission expects that the Exchange will monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposal and the effect of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's, OPRA's and vendors' automated systems.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 of Rule 903G, Terms of FLEX Options, to permit certain FLEX Options to trade under the FLEX Trading Procedures for a limited time. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to allow certain FLEX options, which are identical in all terms to a Non-FLEX option, to trade using FLEX Trading Procedures for the balance of the trading day on which the Non-FLEX Option is added as an intra-day add.
The Exchange recently adopted rule changes to allow FLEX options to expire within two business days of a third-Friday-of-the-month expiration, including expiration Friday (“expiration FLEX”).
The rule change provided that expiration FLEX options will be permitted before (but not after) Non-FLEX Options with identical terms are listed. Once and if an option series is listed for trading as a Non-FLEX Option series, (i) all existing open positions established under the FLEX Trading procedures shall be fully fungible with transactions in the respective Non-FLEX Options series, and (ii) any further trading in the series would be as Non-FLEX Options subject to the Non-FLEX trading procedures and rules.
The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) became concerned that, in certain circumstances, in the event a Non-FLEX Option is listed with identical terms to an existing FLEX option, OCC could not net the positions in the contracts until the next business day. If the Non-FLEX Option were listed intra-day, and the holder of a position in the FLEX option attempted to close the position using the Non-FLEX Option, the holder would be technically long in one contract and short in the other contract. This would expose the holder to assignment risk until the next day despite having offsetting positions.
The limited circumstances are:
• The Non-Flex Option is listed intra-day.
• The FLEX contract is for American style exercise.
• All other terms are identical and the contracts are otherwise fungible.
The risk does not occur in expiration Friday FLEX option positions during the five days prior to expiration, as no new Non-FLEX Option series may be listed within five days of expiration. It also does not exist for FLEX option positions that will be identical to Non-FLEX series to be added after expiration, as those new series are added “overnight” and OCC will convert the FLEX position to the Non-FLEX Options series at the time the Non-FLEX series is created.
As an example, suppose underlying issue XYZ, trading around $25 per share, has options listed on the March cycle, and in February an investor wishes to buy just-out-of-the-money call options that will expire in May. Since the Non-FLEX May Options will not be listed until after the March expiration, the investor enters a FLEX Option order in February to buy 250 Call 30 options expiring on the third Friday of May. If, as expected, the Non-FLEX May 30 call options are listed on the Monday after March expiration, the investor's open FLEX position will be converted by OCC over the weekend following March expiration to the Non-FLEX series.
However, if XYZ stock should decline between the time of the FLEX transaction and March expiration, the May 30 calls may not be added after March Expiration. If that were to occur, the May 30 calls may be added sometime later. Suppose the Exchange receives a request to add the May 30 calls on the morning of the Wednesday after expiration, and the Exchange lists them immediately. The investor with the FLEX position may then decide it is an opportune time to close his position.
Under current rules, the investor would be required to close the position by entering a sell order in the new Non-FLEX Option series. However, when the Non-FLEX transaction is reported to OCC, the investor is considered short in the Non-FLEX Option series, and is still long in the FLEX Option. OCC cannot aggregate the FLEX positions into the Non-FLEX series until after exercise and assignment processing. If a buyer in the new Non-FLEX series were to exercise the options, the original investor who had attempted to close the FLEX position with an offsetting Non-FLEX trade would be at risk of being assigned on the technically short Non-FLEX position.
Because of this risk, OCC will not clear an American style expiration Friday FLEX option. The Exchange has spoken to OCC, and OCC has agreed that allowing the holder of an open position in a FLEX contract to close the position using a FLEX option in such circumstances will mitigate the risk.
The assignment risk does not exist if the Non-FLEX option is to be added the next trading day. In situations where OCC is aware that a series will be added overnight, they can convert the FLEX Position to a Non-FLEX position before the next trading day. However, OCC cannot guarantee that an identical Non-FLEX series will not be added intra-day, and thus will not clear such American style FLEX options.
NYSE Amex is proposing a limited exception to the requirement that the trading in such options be under the Non-FLEX Trading Procedures. The Exchange proposes that, in the event a Non-FLEX Option is listed intra-day, the holder of a FLEX Option with identical terms could close the FLEX position under the FLEX Trading procedures, but only for the balance of the trading day on which the series is added. Under the proposed rule change, both sides of the FLEX transaction would have to be closing only positions.
This change will allow the holder of a FLEX position to trade in such a manner to mitigate the assignment risk.
A Trading Official
The NYSE Regulatory Department reviews FLEX trading activity, and, in the event a non-FLEX series with the same terms as an expiration Friday FLEX option is listed intra-day, will review any subsequent FLEX
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing rule does not (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii),
The Commission notes that the proposed rule change is substantially similar to a proposed rule change previously submitted by NYSE Arca which was published for notice and comment in the
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .09 to NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.4 to establish a Pilot Program to list additional expiration months for each class of options opened for trading on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a Pilot Program to list additional expiration months for each class of options opened for trading on the Exchange, similar to a Pilot Program recently approved for use by the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE”),
Pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4(a), the Exchange currently opens four expiration months for each class of options open for trading on the Exchange, the first two being the two nearest months, regardless of the quarterly cycle on which that class trades; the third and fourth being the next two months of the quarterly cycle previously designated for that specific class. For example, if the Exchange listed in late May a new equity option on a January-April-July-October quarterly cycle, the Exchange would list the two nearest term months (June and July) and the next two months of the cycle (October and January). When the June series expires, the Exchange would add the August series as the next nearest month. And when the July series expires, the Exchange would add the September series.
The Exchange believes that there is market demand for a greater number of expiration months. The Exchange therefore proposes to adopt a Pilot Program pursuant to which it will list up to an additional two expiration months, for a total of six expiration months for each class of options open for trading on the Exchange. The proposal will become effective on a pilot basis for a period of twelve months to commence on the next full month after approval is received to establish the pilot program. Under the proposal, the additional months listed pursuant to the pilot program will result in four consecutive expiration months plus two months from the quarterly cycle. For example, for option classes in the January cycle that have expiration months of June, July, October, and January, the Exchange would additionally list the August and September series. For options classes in the February quarterly cycle that have expiration months of October, November, February, and May, the Exchange would additionally list the December and January series. Under the proposal, no additional LEAP Series will be created.
The Exchange seeks to limit the proposed rule change to 20 actively traded options classes. By limiting the pilot to a small number of classes, the Exchange will be able to gauge interest in the pilot while limiting any additional demands on system resources. It has been estimated that this pilot could add up to six or seven percent to current quote traffic, although changes in market maker quoting behavior may reduce that increase by up to half. The Exchange believes that a limited pilot is a prudent step to determine actual market demand for additional expiration months.
If the Exchange were to propose an extension or an expansion of the pilot program, or should the Exchange propose to make the pilot program permanent, NYSE Arca will submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the pilot program, a pilot program report (“Report”) that will provide an analysis of the Pilot Program covering the first nine months of the pilot program and shall submit the Report to the Commission at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date of the pilot program. The Report will include, at a minimum: (1) Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which additional expiration months were opened; (2) an assessment of the appropriateness of the options classes selected for the pilot program; (3) an assessment of the impact of the pilot program on the capacity on NYSE Arca, OPRA, and on market data vendors (to the extent data from market data vendors is available); (4) any capacity problems or other problems that arose during the operation of the pilot program and how NYSE Arca addressed such problems; (5) any complaints that NYSE Arca received during the operation of the pilot program and how NYSE Arca addressed them; and (6) any additional information that would assist the Commission in assessing the operation of the Pilot Program.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support new options series that will result from the introduction of additional expiration months listed pursuant to this proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal is substantially similar to that of another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to enhance the Reconfirmation and Pricing Service (“RECAPS”) process,
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
RECAPS is NSCC's automated fail clearance system for eligible securities. Through RECAPS, members are provided with an opportunity on a quarterly basis to reconfirm and reprice compared transactions which remain unsettled (
RECAPS allows members to periodically reconfirm open, aged fails (
RECAPS provides reject and DK capabilities for advisories received and requires members to effectively respond to all open fails submitted by a contraparty through a batch overnight submission. Advisories that are either “unresponded to” or “DK'd” are subject to close-out action under the rules of the appropriate marketplace. RECAPS provides for a one-day settlement capability for all compared fails.
Currently, the RECAPS processing procedures are as follows:
1. On a Friday evening at the time and in the manner established by NSCC, members submit RECAPS fail information (“RECAPS Input”).
2. On the following Monday morning, NSCC produces RECAPS Contracts indicating compared, uncompared, and advisory items. Members: (i) Must respond to all advisories that they receive as a result of the initial fail submission (either by submitting an advisory, a “DK,” or a reject) and (ii) may submit an “as-of” trade if the member failed to timely submit a transaction to RECAPS. As-of trades are compared only if there is an exact match, and no trade resolution process is available. NSCC produces supplemental RECAPS Contracts showing items compared on Monday's input and CNS and non-CNS Compared Trade Summaries for those items that compared as a result of Monday's submission.
3. Fails that compared on the Friday submission will settle on Monday. Fails that compared on the Monday submission will settle on Tuesday.
4. A RECAPS Activity Report is made available to members at the end of the RECAPS cycle.
5. The net cash adjustment (the difference between the aggregate value of the original fails and the aggregate value of the reconfirmed trades) will settle the day the underlying RECAPS Contract settles and is included as part of the member's daily money settlement with NSCC.
6. Because RECAPS is not a guaranteed service of NSCC, if NSCC does not receive payment from a member, NSCC may, in its discretion, reverse in whole or part any credit previously given to a member that is the contra side to a trade reconfirmed and repriced through RECAPS.
Currently, many of the transactions submitted to RECAPS by members are subject to noncentralized, manual processes for purposes of comparison of fail details and fail confirmation. Under this proposed rule change, NSCC proposes to enhance and rename the RECAPS service as the OW to which members may submit and may subsequently maintain and manage their unsettled transactions. As part of these enhancements, NSCC proposes to provide a trade matching and confirmation process pursuant to which members may submit to NSCC information on certain obligations that are not otherwise submitted to NSCC by the applicable marketplaces or members themselves through NSCC's other trade comparison or recording services.
The proposed OW Service will forward to CNS on a daily basis (or such other time frame as NSCC determines from time to time) OW Obligations in CNS-eligible securities.
As proposed, once a party enters the required transaction information,
NSCC will have no responsibility for determining whether any trade submission is duplicative of an earlier trade submission, and any such input will be treated as a separate submission. NSCC may delete trade input which is not matched by such time frames as it determines from time to time.
The proposed OW service will permit members to track each OW Obligation for the life of the obligation until it has been (i) Settled, (ii) cancelled by members party to the obligation, or (iii) otherwise closed in the OW Service by NSCC pursuant to NSCC Rules (
NSCC may adjust any compared OW Obligation with respect to certain mandatory reorganization events, which will initially be limited to forward splits, name changes, redemptions, mergers (both cash and stock), and full calls with respect to bonds. In the case of such a mandatory reorganization, at such time on or after the effective date of the reorganization as NSCC shall determine and to the extent NSCC has the relevant information, the affected OW Obligation may be adjusted in accordance with the terms of the reorganization event. With respect to name changes and forward splits, OW positions in the subject security will be converted into the equivalent positions of the new securities and/or cash, and a new obligation will be created automatically as part of the processing in the OW. Any cash component associated with a mandatory reorganization will be included as part of the member's daily money settlement with NSCC.
Unless otherwise excluded by a member, all CNS-eligible OW Obligations that reach the status of settlement date minus one (“SD–1”) or that have reached or passed their scheduled settlement date, may be forwarded to CNS by NSCC on a daily basis.
OW Obligations for which deliveries are made through The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) through either The New York Window (“NYW”) or electronic book-entry deliver order that include the OW Control Number will be updated to indicate that they have settled in accordance with proper instructions from DTC or the member,
Under the proposal, if NSCC ceases to act for a member, all open activity relating to that member will be deleted from the OW. However, the reports relating to such activity will be maintained in accordance with NSCC's record retention requirements.
As proposed, the existing RECAPS process will continue to function in a modified form.
On a day specified by NSCC, each OW Obligation eligible for RECAPS
All new obligations arising from the RECAPS process will be tracked and processed in accordance with the OW procedures described above. If a fail was open over an interest payment date, the parties to the trade will be required to settle that interest payment outside of the OW. Any net cash adjustments resulting from the RECAPS process will be sent to NSCC Settlement as they are under the current process.
The rule change proposes that each member will receive real-time updates regarding its OW activity. In addition, NSCC proposes to make available to each member an end-of-day report that reflects all end-of-day positions of such member in OW, which may be accessed by members through NSCC's systems. Accordingly, NSCC will discontinue issuance of all RECAPS reports (
The rule change also proposes that NSCC will create a new Rule 51 (Obligation Warehouse) and Procedure IIA (Obligation Warehouse) to reflect the changes and enhancements as described above. Rule 51 would provide: (i) A general description of the OW service, (ii) a provision relating to the settlement of OW Obligations and the non-guaranteed nature of the service, and (iii) a limitation of liability on the part of NSCC with respect to obligations processed through the OW. Furthermore, the provisions of Procedure IIA will supersede those set forth in Procedure II, Section F (RECAPS) and thus Section F will be deleted.
In addition, NSCC proposes to make conforming changes to:
a. Rule 1 (Definitions) to add a definition for “Obligation Warehouse” and “OW Obligation”;
b. Rule 7 (Comparison and Trade Recording Operation) to remove language from the rule relating to submission of data to NSCC for reconfirmation and repricing of trade data with respect to transactions already compared through the facilities of NSCC or other facilities, as this service will now occur pursuant to Rule 51 and Procedure XVII;
c. Rule 11 (CNS System) to provide that obligations arising from Special Trades will be automatically entered into the OW;
d. Rule 18 (Procedures for When NSCC Ceases to Act) to reflect that (i) the OW Obligations that have been forwarded to CNS for settlement relating to a member for which NSCC has ceased to act will be removed from the CNS Accounting Operation and that any outstanding OW Obligations of the member will be removed from the OW service and (ii) NSCC will reverse any cash adjustments that were forwarded to settlement relating to the OW activity of a member for which NSCC has ceased to act;
e. Rule 50 (Automated Customer Account Transfer Service) to reflect that non-CNS ACATS items (as well as CNS-eligible items designated to be delivered ex-CNS) will be automatically entered into the OW;
e. Procedure V (Balance Order Accounting Operation) to reflect that Balance Orders will be automatically entered into the OW; and
f. Procedure VII (CNS Accounting Operation) to reflect (i) the addition of CNS-eligible OW activity to the CNS Miscellaneous Activity Report and (ii) securities removed from CNS that result in a CNS Receive and Deliver Instructions will be entered into the Obligation Warehouse service.
NSCC implemented a pilot program of the OW process in early February 2010 for firms that had completed systems changes necessary to participate in the process. This pilot program ended at the beginning of June 2010, as additional discussions ensued between NSCC and its participant members regarding the additional functionalities sought to be included within the service, which are described in this filing. Prior to implementation of OW, NSCC proposes that a participant testing period will
NSCC proposes to implement the changes set forth in this filing for all members during the first quarter of 2011 with the first settlement date expected to be on January 24, 2011. Mandatory reorganization events are anticipated to be applied to OW Obligations shortly after February 4, 2011, on a date no less than 10 business days following announcement of its implementation by Important Notice. Similarly, at the request of the industry, the functionality providing for OW Obligations in CNS-eligible securities to be reviewed and sent to CNS will be implemented several weeks after the initial launch to give members time to familiarize themselves with the OW settlement tracking functionality. Accordingly, after March 4, 2011, or on a date no less than 10 business days following announcement of its implementation by Important Notice obligations in the OW will be reviewed for CNS-eligibility and if eligible, will be closed and sent to CNS. The first RECAPS process in the OW will be run in late March or early April 2011. Pending Commission approval, members will be advised of the implementation dates through issuance of NSCC's Important Notices.
The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC because it facilitates the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions by providing for greater efficiency and transparency with respect to securities transaction obligations processed through the OW. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the CPSS/IOSCO Recommendations for Central Counterparties in that it facilitates the prompt and automated confirmation and comparison of trades, and the tracking of fail transactions by the parties thereto through settlement.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.
Within forty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—Overseas Security Advisory Council on November 16, 17, and 18 at the U.S. Department of State, Washington DC. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), it has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and procedures and will involve extensive discussion of trade secrets and proprietary commercial information that is privileged and confidential, and will discuss law enforcement investigative techniques and procedures. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a global threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector security policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business information overseas.
For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522–2008, phone: 571–345–2214.
The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open meeting at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7, 2010, in Conference Room 5–1224 of the United States Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593–0001. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the fifty-third Session of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Subcommittee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF) to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, from January 10 to January 14, 2011.
The primary matters to be considered include:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. To facilitate the building security process and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, LCDR Tracy Phillips, by e-mail at
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
November 4, 2010, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested person may call 877.768.0032, passcode, 4856462 to participate in this meeting.
Open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.
Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827–4565.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In September 2010, there were four applications approved. This notice also includes information on seven applications, one approved in May 2009, two approved in July 2010, and four approved in August 2010, inadvertently left off the May 2009, July 2010, and August 2010 notices, respectively. Additionally, 17 approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed.
The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). This notice is published pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the name of one individual whose property and interests in property has been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of one individual identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on October 19, 2010.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site (
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the President to impose sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury consults with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security when designating and blocking the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On October 19, 2010, the Director of OFAC designated one individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act.
The listing of the individual is as follows:
1. VALENCIA COSSIO, Guillermo Leon; DOB 24 Jun 1958; Cedula No. 70115707 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of 2 entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
As of October 19, 2010 the Director of OFAC is publicly identifying in this notice 2 entities that are blocked
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site (
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and to the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury may in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons he determines to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On October 19, 2010, OFAC identified 2 entities that are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act.
The list of these blocked entities is as follows:
1. RUNNING BROOK, LLC (USA), Miami, FL, United States; Business Registration Document # L00000010931 (United States); US FEIN 030510902 (United States); (ENTITY) [SDNTK].
2. LA HACIENDA (USA), LLC, Miami, FL, United States; Business Registration Document # L99000003231 (United States); US FEIN 650964520 (United States); (ENTITY) [SDNTK].
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the renewal of an information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning an information collection titled, “Record and Disclosure Requirements—FRB Regulations B, E, M, Z, CC, and DD.” The OCC also gives notice that is has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 24, 2010.
Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Mailstop 2–3, Attention: 1557–0176, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (202) 874–5274, or by electronic mail to
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557–0176, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395–6974.
You may request additional information or a copy of the collection and supporting documentation submitted to OMB by contacting: Mary H. Gottlieb, (202) 874–5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.
This regulation prohibits lenders from discriminating against credit applicants, establishes guidelines for gathering and evaluating information about personal characteristics in applications for certain dwelling-related loans, requires lenders to provide applicants with copies of appraisal reports in connection with credit transactions, and requires written notification of action taken on a credit application.
This regulation requires certain mortgage lenders to report certain home loan application information and to disclose certain data regarding their home mortgage lending.
This regulation establishes the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of parties in electronic fund transfers and offers protections to consumers when they use such systems.
This regulation implements the consumer leasing provisions of the Truth in Lending Act by requiring meaningful disclosure of leasing terms.
This regulation prescribes uniform methods for computing the cost of
This regulation establishes timeframes to govern the availability of funds deposited in checking accounts, rules to govern the collection and return of checks, and general provisions to govern the use of substitute checks.
This regulation requires depository institutions to provide disclosures sufficient to enable consumers to make informed comparisons about accounts at depository institutions.
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the information collection burden;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of two newly-designated individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the two individuals identified in this notice, pursuant to Executive Order 13224, is effective on October 20, 2010.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On September 23, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13224 (the “Order”) pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701–1706, and the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. 287c. In the Order, the President declared a national emergency to address grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. The Order imposes economic sanctions on persons who have committed, pose a significant risk of committing, or support acts of terrorism. The President identified in the Annex to the Order, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, 13 individuals and 16 entities as subject to the economic sanctions. The Order was further amended by Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, to reflect the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in or hereafter come within the United States or the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) Foreign persons listed in the Annex to the Order; (2) foreign persons determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States; (3) persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order; and (4) except as provided in section 5 of the Order and after such consultation, if any, with foreign authorities as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, deems appropriate in the exercise of his discretion, persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, such acts of terrorism or those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or determined to be subject to the Order or to be otherwise associated with those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order.
On October 20, 2010 the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice and other relevant agencies, designated, pursuant to one or more of the criteria set forth in subsections 1(b), 1(c) or 1(d) of the Order, two individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224.
The designees are as follows:
1. ALIZAI, Haji Agha Jan (a.k.a. ALIZAI, Agha Jan), Musa Qala, Helmand, Afghanistan; Dand Chowk, Kandahar City, Afghanistan; DOB 15 Oct 1963; alt. DOB 14 Feb 1973; alt. DOB 1957; POB Khandahar, Afghanistan; alt. POB Helmand, Afghanistan; nationality Afghanistan (individual) [SDNTK] [SDGT]
2. KAKAR, Saleh Mohammad (a.k.a. “SALEH MOHAMMAD”); DOB 1962; POB Nulgham Village, Panjwai District, Kandahar, Afghanistan; nationality Afghanistan (individual) [SDGT]
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of eighteen individuals whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995,
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”) of the individuals identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, is effective on October 19, 2010.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On October 21, 1995, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State: (a) To play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (b) to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the Order; and (3) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated pursuant to the Order.
On October 19, 2010 the Director of OFAC removed from the SDN List the eighteen individuals listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Order:
1. ARCE GARCIA, Rodrigo Alberto, c/o AGRO MASCOTAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 9 Jun 1963; Cedula No. 16699556 (Colombia); Passport 16699556 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
2. BARRIOS SENIOR, Jario Ascanio, c/o PENTACOOP LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 18 Jun 1962; Cedula No. 8723099 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
3. CARO PEREZ, Maria Eugenia, c/o COMEDICAMENTOS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o FOGENSA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GLAJAN S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 17 Sep 1971; Cedula No. 52583651 (Colombia); Passport 52583651 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
4. CASTANEDA QUINTERO, Luis Alberto, c/o FARMACOOP, Bogota, Colombia; c/o PENTACOOP LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PENTA PHARMA DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o LABORATORIOS KRESSFOR DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DECAFARMA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 12 Feb 1938; Cedula No. 6064977 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
5. CASTANEDA RAMIREZ, Lorena Constanza, c/o PENTACOOP LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PENTA PHARMA DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DECAFARMA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DROCARD S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DROMARCA Y CIA. S.C.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MATERIAS PRIMAS Y SUMINISTROS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 13 May 1971; Cedula No. 52071011 (Colombia); Passport 52071011 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
6. DIAZ SANCHEZ, Alberto, Carrera 66 No. 5–23, Cali, Colombia; c/o CONCRETOS CALI S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o CONSTRUCTORA DIMISA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o INMOBILIARIA U.M.V. S.A., Cali, Colombia; DOB 2 Jan 1956; Cedula No. 16259623 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
7. HUERTAS RAMIREZ, Jorge Luis, c/o REPRESENTACIONES Y DISTRIBUCIONES HUERTAS Y ASOCIADOS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DECAFARMA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o LABORATORIOS KRESSFOR DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PRODUCTOS GALO Y CIA. LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 2 Apr 1951; Cedula No. 19134241 (Colombia); Passport 19134241 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
8. JURADO CARDONA, Diego Maria, c/o MACROFARMA S.A., Pereira, Colombia; c/o FARMALIDER S.A., Cali, Colombia; Cedula No. 7526942 (Colombia); Passport 7526942 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
9. LAVERDE GOMEZ, German, c/o CONSTRUCTORA ALTOS DEL RETIRO LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 20 Apr 1956; Cedula No. 79140380 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
10. MORALES ROBLEDO, Nicolas Abdul, c/o AGRO MASCOTAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 16686544 (Colombia); Passport 16686544 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
11. MORAN GUERRERO, Mario Fernando, c/o PENTACOOP LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PENTA PHARMA DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o COINTERCOS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o LABORATORIOS KRESSFOR, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 17 Mar 1965; Cedula No. 12983857 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
12. PARRA RESTREPO, Diego, c/o AGRO MASCOTAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 6089400 (Colombia); Passport 6089400 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
13. PARRA RESTREPO, Pedro Nel, c/o AGRO MASCOTAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 1211206 (Colombia); Passport 1211206 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
14. RAMIREZ DE CASTANEDA, Maria (a.k.a. RAMIREZ RAMIREZ,
RAMIREZ RAMIREZ, Maria (a.k.a. RAMIREZ DE CASTANEDA, Maria), c/o PENTA PHARMA DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PENTACOOP LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DECAFARMA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 8 Dec 1943; Cedula No. 31226330 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
15. RENDON RODRIGUEZ, Maria Fernanda, c/o DISMERCOOP, Cali, Colombia; Cedula No. 38864017 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
16. ROJAS GALARZA, Carmen Amparo, Carrera 35 No. 10–130, Cali, Colombia; c/o CREDIREBAJA S.A., Cali, Colombia; Cedula No. 34511289 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
17. ROJAS SALAMANCA, Myriam, c/o GENERICOS ESPECIALES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o LABORATORIOS KRESSFOR DE COLOMBIA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o LEMOFAR LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 3 Apr 1959; Cedula No. 35324270 (Colombia); Passport 35324270 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
18. SANCHEZ VARILLA, Luis Manuel; DOB 1 Feb 1964; Cedula No. 8174649 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the name of one individual whose property and interests in property has been unblocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”) of the individual identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act, is effective on October 19, 2010.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622–2420.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On December 3, 1999, the Kingpin Act was signed into law by the President of the United States. The Kingpin Act provides a statutory framework for the President to impose sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and to the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. persons and entities.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, that is owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers, as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury consults with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security when designating and blocking the property or interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons or entities who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; and/or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On October 19, 2010, OFAC removed from the SDN List the individual listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
1. SANCHEZ VARILLA, Luis Manuel; DOB 1 Feb 1964; Cedula No. 8174649 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Notice; correction.
TVA published a record of decision (ROD) for the
TVA prepared the final SEIS to update the extensive environmental information and analyses that exist respecting the Bellefonte site and the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant on that site. The ROD documents the August 20, 2010, TVA Board of Directors' (TVA Board) approval to spend $248 million for engineering, design, and licensing activities needed to maintain Unit 1 as a viable alternative to meet the projected need for base load generation on the TVA system in 2018–2020. Bellefonte Unit 1 is a partially completed 1,260-megawatt Babcock and Wilcox-designed pressurized light water reactor. It is anticipated that the TVA Board will be asked to approve completion and operation of Unit 1 next year, depending on the results of a new TVA Integrated Resource Plan, which is scheduled for completion in spring 2011.
Ruth Horton, Senior NEPA Specialist, Environmental Permits and Compliance, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902–1499; telephone (865) 632–3719 or e-mail
In the